'^<5^ear 


75 
ML 


OUTLINES 


-^4^. 


sS 


OF 


THEOLOa^Y 


BY      THE 


REV.  A.  ALEXANDER  HODGE, 

PASTOE    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH,    FREDRICKSBUEG,     VIRGINIA. 


NEW     YORK: 
ROBERT    CARTER    ct    BROTHERS, 

53  1      BRO  AD  WAT. 

1860. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1860,  by 

ROBERT  CARTER  &  BROTHERS 

In  tho  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


BTBJUOTYPBn  BT  PBINTTO  BT 

SMlTH&f.lcDOUGAL.  E.O.JENKINS, 

S8  &  84  Boekmin-st.,  N.  Y.  26  Frankfort-st. 


•^i^.,  ;S^- ^"--r^^ 


PREFACE, 

In  introducing  this  book  to  the  reader,  I  have  only  a 
single  word  to  say  upon  two  points :  Jirst,  as  to  the  uses 
which  I  regard  this  form  of  exhibiting  theological  truth  as 
being  specially  qualified  to  subserve ;  and,  secondly^  as  to 
tlie  sources  from  which  I  have  drawn  the  materials  com- 
posing these  "  Outlines." 

As  to  the  first  point,  I  have  to  say,  that  the  conception 
and  execution  of  this  work  originated  in  the  experience  of 
the  need  for  some  such  manual  of  theological  definitions 
and  argumentation,  in  the  immediate  work  of  instructing 
the  members  of  my  own  pastoral  charge.  The  several 
chapters  were  in  the  first  instance  prepared  and  used  in  the 
same  form  in  which  they  are  now  printed,  as  the  basis  of  a 
lecture  delivered  otherwise  extemporaneously  to  my  congre- 
gation every  Sabbath  night.  In  this  use  of  them,  I  found 
these  preparations  successful  beyond  my  hopes.  The  con- 
gregation, as  a  whole,  were  induced  to  enter  with  interest 
upon  the  study  even  of  the  most  abstruse  questions.  Hav- 
ing put  this  work  thus  to  this  practical  test,  I  now  offer  it 
to  my  brethren  in  the  ministry,  that  they  may  use  it,  if 
they  will,  as  a  repertory  of  digested  material  for  the  doc- 
trinal instruction  of  their  people,  either  in  Bible  classes,  or 
by  means  of  a  congregational  lecture.     I  offer  it  also  as  an 


iv  PREFACE. 

attempt  to  supply  an  acknowledged  public  want,  as  a  syl- 
labus of  theological  study  for  the  use  of  theological  students 
generally,  and  for  the  use  of  those  many  laborious  preach- 
ers of  tlie  gospel  who  can  not  command  the  time,  or  who 
have  not  the  opportunity,  or  other  essential  means,  to  study 
the  more  expensive  and  elaborate  works  from  which  the 
materials  of  this  compend  have  been  gathered. 

The  questions  have  been  retained  in  form,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  adapting  the  book  in  any  degree  for  catechetical 
instruction,  but  as  the  most  convenient  and  perspicuous 
method  of  presenting  an  "outline  of  theology"  so  con- 
densed. This  same  necessity  of  condensation  I  would  also 
respectfully  plead  as  in  some  degree  an  excuse  for  some  of 
the  instances  of  obscurity  in  definition  and  meagerness  of 
illustration,  which  the  reader  will  observe. 

In  the  second  place,  as  to  the  sources  from  which  1 
have  drawn  the  materials  of  this  book,  I  may  for  the  most 
part  refer  the  reader  to  the  several  passages,  where  the 
acknowledgment  is  made  as  the  debt  is  incurred.     In  gen- 
eral, however,  it  is  proper  to  say  that  I  have,  with  his  per- 
mission, used  the  list  of  questions  given  by  my  father  to 
his  classes  of  forty-five  and  six.     I  have  added  two  or  three 
chapters  which  his  course  did  not  embrace,  and  have  in 
general  adai)ted  his  questions  to  my  new  purpose,  by  omis- 
sions, additions,  or  a  different  distribution.     To  such  a  de- 
gree, however,  have  they  directed  and  assisted  me,  that  I 
feel  a  confidence  in  offering  the  result  to  the  public  which 
otherwise  would  have  been   unwarrantable.     In  the  fre- 
quent instances  in  which  I  have  possessed  his  published 
articles  upon  the  subjects  of  the  following  chapters,  the 


PBEF  ACE 


reader  will  find  that  I  have  drawn  largely  from  them.  It 
is  due  to  myself,  however,  to  say,  that  except  in  two  in- 
stances, "  The  Scriptures  the  only  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge 
of  Controversies,"  and  the  "  Second  Advent,"  I  have  never 
heard  delivered  nor  read  the  manuscript  of  that  course  of 
theological  lectures  which  he  has  prepared  for  the  use  of 
his  classes  subsequently  to  my  graduation.  In  the  in- 
stances I  have  above  excepted,  I  have  attempted  little 
more,  in  the  preparation  of  the  respective  chapters  of  this 
book  bearing  those  titles,  than  to  abridge  my  father's  lec- 
tures. In  every  instance  I  have  endeavored  to  acknowl- 
edge the  full  extent  of  the  assistance  I  have  derived  from 
others,  in  which  I  have,  I  believe,  uniformly  succeeded, 
except  so  far  as  I  am  now  unable  to  trace  to  their  original 
sources  some  of  the  materials  collected  by  me  in  my  class 
manuscripts,  prepared  fourteen  years  ago,  while  a  student 
of  theology.  This  last  reference  relates  to  a  large  element 
in  this  book,  as  I  wrote  copiously,  and  after  frequent  oral 
communication  with  my  father,  both  in  public  and  pri- 
vate. 

A.  A.  Hodge. 

TBEDTjHtCKSBURG,  May,  1860. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGB 

CHAPTER  I. 

BEING  OF  GOD 11 


CHAPTER  II. 

THEOLOGY— ITS  SOUBCES 37 

CHAPTER  III. 

EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY 49 

CHAPTER  IV. 

INSPIRATION 67 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  SCRIPTURES  OF  THE  OLD  AND   NEW  TESTAMENTS   THE   ONLY   ];ULE   OF 

FAITH  AND  JUDGE  OP  CONTROVERSIES 78 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE 90 

CHAPTER  VII. 

-THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD 101 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY,  INCLUDING  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST,  THE 
ETERNAL  GENERATION  OF  THE  SON,  THE  PERSONALITY,  DIVINITY,  AND 
ETERNAL  PROCESSION  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST,  AND  TIIE  SEVERAL  PROP- 
ERTIES AND  MUTUAL  RELATIONS  OF  THE  pr.i;;=ONS  OF  THE  GODHEAD..  129 


(y 


VIU  CONTENTS 


FAOB 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  DOCTRINK  OF  THE  DINTNE  DECKEE3  IN  GENERAL. 163 


CHAPTER  X. 

PKKDKSTIN'ATIOX 174 

CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD 186 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGKLS 196 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

PROVIDENCE 204 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  ORIGINAL  STATE  OF  MAN 216 

CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  COVENANT  OF  WORKS 028 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

SIN— ITS   NATURE;   ADAM'S   SIN,  AND  THE  CONSEQUENCES   THEREOF  TO  HIS 

POSTERITY '233 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

ORIGINAL  SIN 24T 

CHAPTER  XVI  [I. 

THE  nOCTKISF.  OF  FREE  AGENCY  AND  OF  HUMAN  INABILITY 260 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE 2T0 

CHAPTER   XX 

THE  PER.SON  OF  CHRIST 281 


CONTENTS.  ix 

PAoa 

CHAPTER  XXL 

THE  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST 289 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

THE  ATONEMENT:   ITS  NATURE,  NECESSITY,  PERFECTION  AND  EXTENT 299 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

THE  INTERCESSION  OF  CHRIST 319 

CHAPTER    XXIV. 

THE  MEDIATORIAL  KINGSHIP  OF  CHRIST 321 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

EFFECTUAL  CALLING 333 

CHAPTER   XXVI. 

REGENERATION 343 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

FAITH 3B3 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

THE  UNION  OF  THE  BELIEVER  WITH  CHRIST 369 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

REPENTANCE. STB 


CHAPTER  XXX.  ^ 

JUSTIFICATION 38-3  /, 

CHAPTER   XXXI. 

ADOPTION 398 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 

SANCTIFICATION 409 


'/ 


X  CONTENTS 


PAOB 


CHAPTER  XXXIIl. 

PEHSEVERANCE  OF  THE  SAINTS 426 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

DEATH,  AND  THE  STATE  OP  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH 430 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

THE  RESURRECTION 440 

CHAPTER  XXXVI. 

THE  SECOND  ADVENT  AND  GENERAL  JUDGMENT 447 

CHAPTER   XXXVII. 

HEAVEN  AND  THE  DOCTRINE  OP  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS 459 

CHAPTER   XXXVIII. 

THE  SACRAMENTS 469 

CHAPTER   XXXIX. 

BAPTISM— ITS  NATURE  AND  DESIGN,  MODE,  SUBJECTS,  EFFICACY  AND  NECES- 
SITY   479 

CHAPTER  XL. 

THE  LORD'S  SUPPER 503 


itl^^  '^i^.Jc^uyj/^^^'  ^^^''^-^.  </^^^.  ^^^ 


-iMtiy 


OUTLINES    OF    THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE     BEING     OF     GOD. 


1.  Can  Ood  he  defined  ? 

As  the  human  mind  is  finite,  and  conceives  by  defining  the 
limits  of  the  object  of  its  thought,  and  as  God  is  known  to  us  to 
be  infinite,  it  is  evident  that  the  human  mind  can  never  bo  capa- 
ble of  conceiving  God  adequately  as  he  is,  or  of  defining  his 
being. 

But  God  is  known  to  us  by  certain  attributes  or  modes  of  be- 
ing, the  conception  of  which  is  possible  to  us,  and  which  truly 
represent  him,  as  far  as  they  go.  We  conceive  of  each  of  these 
attributes  as  possessed  by  God  in  a  degi-ee  to  which  we  put  no 
limits,  and  to  which  we  know  that  no  limits  can  be  assigned.  In 
degree,  therefore,  our  conception  of  the  attributes  of  God  is  in- 
definite, and  so  can  not  be  defined  ;  but  on  the  other  hand  we 
may  be  truly  said  to  define  our  idea  of  God  when  we  furnish  a 
comprehensive  statement  of  all  the  attributes  of  God  that  are  re- 
vealed to  us  in  Scripture,  and  in  the  form  in  which  they  are  con- 
ceived of  by  our  finite  understandings. 

2.  How  has  God  been  defined  ? 

As  the  conceptions  which  difierent  men  have  formed  of  God 
are  very  various,  so  the  fomis  in  which  these  conceptions  have  been 
expressed  have  differed. 

I.  The  Pantheist  calls  him  to  civ,  absolute  being,  and  rb  ndv, 
the  all-universal  being,  for  this  is  the  sum  of  what  he  knows  of 
God. 

II.  The  Deist  calls  him  the  absolute,  self-existent,  infinite 
Spirit.     This  is  true  as  far  as  it  goes. 


12  THE   BEING    OF   GOD. 

III.  The  definition  given  under  the  Beventh  question  of  the 
Larger  Catechism,  and  the  fourth  of  the  Shorter  Catechism,  is  a 
comi)rcherisivc  statement  of  the  divine  perfections  as  they  are  re- 
vealed in  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  as  under  the  light  of  Scripture 
they  are  significantly  taught  by  the  works  of  God,  creative  and 
providential,  physical  and  spiritual. 

3.  What  is  the  origin  of  that  idea  of  God  which  is  found  to 
he  universally  diffused  among  people  of  all  nations  and  ages  of 
the  world  ? 

On  this  subject  there  are  blended  together  two  questions,  which 
every  human  consciousness  must  in  some  way  answer  for  itself. 
I.  Is  there  any  God  ?  II.  What  is  God  ?  The  answer  to  both 
of  these  questions,  inchiding  his  existence  and  his  attributes,  must 
enter  into  the  complex  idea  which  any  mind  entertains  of  God. 

Now  these  conceptions  and  beliefs  concerning  the  divine  ex- 
istence, which  in  one  or  another  of  their  various  forms  are  uni- 
versally prevalent  among  men,  originate  in  several  different  sources, 
all  of  which  contribute,  though  in  various  proportions  in  different 
cases,  to  the  conceptions  which  men  form  of  God.  These  sources 
are — "  I.  The  innate  constitution  of  the  human  soul.  II.  The 
speculative  reason  of  man  operating  reflectively  upon  the  facts  of 
consciousness  and  the  phenomena  of  external  nature.  III.  Tra- 
dition.    IV.  Supernatural  revelation." 

4.  I7i  what  sense  is  the  idea  of  God  innate,  and  hoio  far  is  it 
natural  to  man  ? 

It  is  not  innate  in  the  sense  either  that  any  man  is  born  with 
a  coiTCft  idea  of  God  perfectly  developed,  or  that,  independently 
of  instruction,  any  man  can,  in  the  development  of  his  natural 
powers  alone,  arrive  at  a  correct  knowledge  of  God.  Some  very 
debased  fragments  of  the  human  family  have  been  found  who  were 
even  destitute  of  any  definite  idea  of  God  at  all.  On  the  other 
hand,  independently  of  all  instruction,  a  sense  of  dependence  and 
of  moral  accountahility  is  natural  to  man.  These  logically  in- 
volve the  \)<Sn\'i  of  a  God,  and  when  the  intellectual  and  moral 
character  of  an  individual  or  race  is  in  any  degree  developed,  these 
invariably  suggest  tlic  idea  and  induce  the  belief  of  a  God.  Thus 
man  is  as  universally  a  religious  as  he  is  a  rational  being.     And 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    IDEA    OF    GOD.  13 

whenever  the  existence  and  character  of  God  as  providential  and 
moral  ruler  is  offered  as  fact,  then  every  human  soul  responds  to 
it  as  true,  seen  in  its  own  self-evidencing  light,  in  the  absence  of 
all  formal  demonstration. 

5.  Hoio  far  is  the  idea  of  God  the  product  of  the  speculative 
reason  ? 

If  the  phrase  speculative  reason  be  used  to  signify  the  abstract 
intellect  of  man,  his  moral  constitution  being  excluded,  acting 
upon  its  own  d  priori  principles,  then  we  believe  that  the  reason 
can  not  be  said  to  originate,  but  only  to  confirm  and  complete 
the  idea  of  God  furnished  by  other  sources.  But  if  that  phrase 
be  used  to  express  the  intellect  as  informed  by  the  conscience  and 
by  the  emotional  and  voluntary  nature  of  man,  and  acting  uj)on 
the  abundant  evidences  of  wise  and  beneficent  design,  powerfully 
executed,  with  which  all  God's  works  are  filled,  then  the  reason 
thus  exercised  must  lead  to  certain  knowledge  that  God  is,  and  to 
some  knowledge  of  his  natural  and  moral  attributes, 

6.  How  far  is  the  idea  of  God  traditional  ? 

It  is  impossible  for  us,  who  enjoy  the  light  of  a  divine  revela- 
tion, to  determine  how  far  the  knowledge  of  God  might  be  spon- 
taneously attained  by  each  generation  for  itself,  and  how  far  the 
actual  knowledge  possessed  by  each  people  is  due  to  a  tradition 
from  the  past.  It  is  on  the  other  hand  very  plain  that  the  form 
in  which  the  idea  is  conceived,  and  the  associations  with  which  it 
is  accompanied,  is  determined  among  every  people  by  the  theologi- 
cal traditions  they  have  received  from  their  fathers.  It  is  certain 
also  that  a  tradition  of  the  true  God  and  of  his  dealings  with  man 
long  lingered  among  the  Gentiles,  and  even  now,  though  variously 
perverted,  enters  as  an  element  into  the  mythologies  of  heathen 
nations. 

7.  How  far  is  the  idea  of  God  due  to  a  supernatural  revela- 
tion ? 

The  natural  revelation  which  God  makes  of  himself  to  man,  in 
the  constitution  of  the  human  soul,  and  in  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence,  would  unquestionably  have  been  sufticient  to  lead 
him  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  if  man  himself  had  continued  in 


14  THE   BEING   OF   GOD. 

his  natural  moral  condition  and  relations.  But  since  by  reason 
of  sin  man's  mind  has  been  darkened,  his  heart  hardened,  and  his 
relations  to  God  infinitely  involved,  man  never  can  be  able,  by 
the  mere  light  of  nature,  to  reach  both  a  certain  and  an  adequate 
knowledge  of  God.  It  is  certain,  both  from  the  reason  of  the 
case  and  from  universal  experience,  that  a  supernatural  revelation 
is  absolutely  necessary,  1st,  to  make  certain  by  additional  evi- 
dences the  conclusions  of  reason  ;  2d,  to  complete  and  render 
practically  adequate  the  knowledge  of  God  which  reason  other- 
wise has  reached. 

8.  What  are  the  tioo  great  questions  involved  in  this  inquiry 
as  to  the  being  of  God  ? 

I. .  Is  there  any  conclusive  evidence  that  such  a  being  as  God 
exists  ?  II.  What  is  the  nature  of  God,  as  far  as  his  attributes 
are  manifested  by  the  evidence  w^hich  proves  his  existence.  This 
second  question  resolves  itself  into  two  others.  1st.  AVhat  are 
the  attributes  of  God,  as  ascertained  to  us  by  the  light  of  nature 
alone  ;  2d.  What  are  his  attributes,  as  ascertained  by  the  light  of 
the  supernatural  revelation  given  in  Scripture. 

9.  Can  there  he  any  strictly  logical  demonstration  of  the  being 
of  God  constructed  ? 

The  idea  which  we  entertain  of  God  is  a  complex  one,  the 
different  elements  of  which  are  furnished  to  us  by  different  sources. 
No  one  single  line  of  demonstrative  proof  can  establish  the  exist- 
ence of  that  Infinite  Spirit  which  is  known  to  the  Christian  as 
Jehovah.  Many  different  arguments,  however,  concur  in  converg- 
ing to  this  inevitable  center,  each  contributing  at  once  confirma- 
tory evidence  that  God  is,  and  complementary  evidence  as  to  ivhat 
God  is,  and  thus  concurrently  establishing  the  being  of  God  upon 
immovable  foundations. 

The  conception  of  God,  as  a  powerful  and  righteous  person,  is 
first  given  us  in  our  constitutional  feeling  of  dependence  and  of 
moral  accountability.  Starting  with  this  conception,  we  may 
abundantly  demonstrate  his  wisdom,  goodness,  power,  etc.,  and 
thus  reciprocally  confirm  the  evidence  for  his  being  from  the  work 
of  his  hands  in  his  physical  and  spiritual  creation,  in  his  works 
called  natural,  as  providence,  and  in  his  works  called  supernatural, 


CAN   IT   BE  LOGICALLY   DEMONSTRATED  ?  15 

as  miracles^  prophecies,  inspiration,  and  spiritual  regeneration. — 
See  Hansel's  Limits  of  Religious  Thought.     Lect.  IV, 


10.  WJiat  are  the  principle  arguments  hy  which  this  great 
truth  has  been  generally  defended  hy  orthodox  Theists  ? 

The  six  principle  arguments  used  to  maintain  the  being  of 
God  are  as  follows  : 

I,  Thedjyriori  argument  which  seeks  to  demonstrate  the  being 
of  a  God  from  certain  first  principles  involved  in  the  essential 
laws  of  human  intelligence. 

11.  The  cosmological  argument,  or  that  one  which  proceeds 
after  the  a  posteriori  fashion,  from  the  present  existence  of  the 
world  as  an  effect,  to  the  necessary  existence  of  some  ultimate  and 
eternal  first  cause. 

III.  The  teleological  argument,  or  that  argument  which,  from 
the  evidences  of  design  in  the  creation,  seeks  to  establish  the  fact 
that  the  gi'eat  self-existent  first  cause  of  all  things  is  an  intelli- 
gent and  voluntary  personal  spirit. 

IV.  The  moral  argument,  or  that  argument  which,  from  a 
consideration  of  the  phenomena  of  conscience  in  the  humanjieart, 
seeks  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  self-existent  Creator  is  also 
the  rio-hteous  moral  governor  of  the  world.  This  argument  in- 
cludes the  consideration  of  the  universal  feeling  of  dependence 
common  to  all  men,  which  together  with  conscience  constitutes 
the  religious  sentiment. 

V.  The  historical  argument,  which  involves — (1.)  The  evident 
jQrovidcntial  presence  of  God  m  the  history  of  the  human  race. 
(2.)  TlTe  evidence  afibrded  by  history  that  the  human  racels^ot 
eternal,  and  therefore  not  an  infinite  succession  of  indi\'iduals,  but 
created.  (3.)  The  universal  consent  of  all  men  to  the  fact  of  his 
existence. 

VI.  The  scriptural  argument,  which  includes — (1.)  Tlic  mira- 
cles  and  j^rophecies  recorded  in  Scrijjture,  and  confirmed  by  testi- 

^ony,  proving  the  existence  of  a  God.  (2.)  TliejBiblejlfiiilf,  self- 
evidcntly  a  work  of  superhuman  wisdom.  (3.)  JRevelatiiin,  de- 
veloping and  enlightening  conscience,  and  relieving  many  of  the 
difficulties  under  which  natural  Theism  labors,  and  thus  confirm- 
ing every  other  line  of  evidence. — Dr.  Hodge. 


n 


16  THE   BEING   OF   GOD. 

11.  W7iat  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrases  a  priori  and  onto- 
logical  ? 

The  phrase  d  priori,  as  contrasted  with  the  phrase  d  posteri- 
ori, signifies  an  argument  proceeding  downward  from  causes  to 
effects,  or  from  general  and  necessary  principles  to  some  particular 
consequence  necessarily  resulting  from  them.  An  d  posteriori 
argument,  on  the  other  hand,  is  one  proceeding  in  the  contrary 
direction,  from  effects  upward  to  their  cause,  or  from  certain  par- 
ticular consequences  to  the  general  and  necessary  principles  from 
which  they  result. 

An  ontoJogical  argument  is  one  (ontology  is  compounded  of 
two  Greek  words,  meaning  the  science  of  real  existence,  or  exist- 
ence in  its  absolute  reality,  as  distinguislied  from  phenomena  or 
things  as  they  appear  to  us  to  be  relatively  to  our  fticulties  of 
perception),  "  which  proposes  to  discover  or  establish  the  fact  of 
any  real  existence,  either  beyond  the  sphere  of  the  present  world, 
or  in  any  other  way  incapable  of  being  the  direct  object  of  con- 
sciousness, which  can  be  deduced  immediately  from  the  possession 
of  certain  feelings  or  principles  and  faculties  of  the^^maETsouj^"— 
Ancient  Philosophy  ¥y  W.  Archer  Butler,  vol.  i.,  ch.  3,  p.  68! 

12.  What  is  the  famous  a  priori  argument  for  the  existence 
of  God,  as  set  forth  by  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  ? 

By  far  the  ablest  and  most  famous  argument  for  the  being  of 
God  ever  constructed  on  a  priori  principles  is  that  set  forth  in 
the  Boyle  lectures  of  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  delivered  in  London,  a.  d. 
1704.     Its  main  points  are  as  follows  : 

I.  As  it  is  certain  that  something  does  exist  now,  something 
must  have  existed  from  all  eternity  ;  since  it  is  contradictory  to 
conceive  of  any  thing  commencing  to  exist,  except  through  the 
intervention  of  some  preexisting  cause,  pp.  9  and  10,  4th  Lon- 
don edition,  a.  d.  1716. 

II.  Whatever  has  existed  from  eternity  must  be  self-existent, 
or  necessarily  existent,  i.  e.,  must  have  the  ground  or  reason  of  its 
existence  at  all  times  and  in  all  j)laces  alike  of  an  equal  necessity 
in  itself,  p.  15. 

III.  The  only  true  idea  of  a  self-existent  or  necessarily  exist- 
ent being  is  the  idea  of  a  being,  the  supposition  of  whose  not 
existing  is  an  express  contradiction,  p.  16. 


CAN   IT    BE   LOGICALLY   DEBIONSTRATED  ?  17 

IV.  The  material  world  can  not  possibly  he  the  first  and  ori- 
ginal being,  uncreated,  independent,  and  of  itself  eternal ;  because 
it  involves  no  contradiction  to  conceive  of  the  world,  as  to  the 
matter,  form,  measure,  or  motion  of  it,  either  not  to  be  at  all,  or 
to  be  different  from  what  it  is,  pp.  22,  23. 

V.  But  since  something  does  now  exist,  it  is  a  contradiction 
not  to  conceive  of  something  as  necessarily  self-existent  from  eter- 
nity ;  and  besides  infinite  space  and  eternal  duration  can  not  be 
thought  not  to  exist  without  a  contradiction.  They  are  therefore 
necessarily  self-existent,  and  therefore  also  the  essence  of  God,  of 
which  infinite  space  and  eternal  duration  are  the  essential  proper- 
ties or  attributes,  must  be  self-existent  also.  For  space  and  time 
are  not  substances  but  properties,  which  necessarily  imply  a  com- 
mensurate substance  to  which  they  belong,  j).  16. 

He  thence  proceeds  by  a  similar  process  to  prove  that  God  is 
infinitely  wise,  free,  powerful  and  good,  etc. 

13.    What  are  the  objections  to  this  argument  ? 

This  argument,  as  employed  by  Dr.  Clarke,  is  consummately 
able,  and  if  not  of  itself  conclusive,  has  been  of  the  greatest  use  in 
confronting  the  ontological  Pantheists  on  their  own  ground.  The 
recent  fashionable  objections  to  all  a  2:)riori  reasoning  on  this  sub- 
ject have  been  carried  too  far.  I.  Because  every  ci  priori  system 
of  proof  is  partly  cl  x^ostcriori,  starting  from  the  experience  Avhiclt 
consciousness  affords  us  of  dependent  existence.  II.  Because 
every  a  posteriori  system  of  proof  embraces  of  necessity  an  a 
priori  element,  thus  the  principles  that  every  effect  must  have  a 
cause,  and  that  design  argues  intelligence,  are  t^^Won  judgments. 
The  special  objections  that  lie  against  Dr.  Clarke's  argument  are, 
I.  It  confounds  logical  necessity  of  thought  upon  the  part  of  man 
with  physical  necessity  of  being  upon  the  part  of  God,  making 
the  power  of  man  to  conceive  or  not  to  conceive  the  measure  of 
real  existence,  and  II.  It  makes  space  and  time,  which  are  to  us 
necessary  abstract  conceptions,  and  conditions  of  all  thinking  prop- 
erties of  God.  God  is  omnipresent  and  eternal,  but  in  any  other 
sense  it  is  absurd  to  regard  space  and  time  as  iH'operties  of  which 
he  is  the  substance.  They  are  the  conditions  of  all  being,  and  are 
occupied  by  all  existences  in  infinitely  various  proportions  and 
relations. 

2. 


18  THE   BEING   OF   GOD, 

14.   What  is  the  argument  of  Descartes  and  others,  derived 
from  the  fact  that  we  possess  the  idea  of  God  ? 

Descartes,  founding  all  knowledge  upon  the  truth  of  human 
consciousness,  maintained  that  in  proportion  to  the  clearness  of 
an  idea  is  the  evidence  that  it  actually  represents  an  objective 
reality.  But  one  of  the  clearest  and  most  prominent  ideas  actually 
possessed  by  man  is  the  idea  of  one  infinitely  perfect  being.  This 
idea  could  not  spring  from  "  any  finite  source,  since  the  finite  and 
imperfect  could  not  give  me  the  idea  of  the  infinite  and  perfect. 
Hence,  if  I  have  an  incontestibly  clear  idea  of  God,  a  God  must 
necessarily  exist." 

He  also  argued  that  the  existence  of  God  is  implied  in  the 
nature  of  the  idea  we  have  of  him,  just  as  the  existence  of  a 
triangle  is  implied  in  the  conception  w^hich  we  form  of  a  triangle. 
Self-existence  and  necessary  existence  are  essential  elements  of  an 
infinitely  perfect  being.  But  as  we  have  an  idea  of  an  infinitely 
perfect  being,  including  his  self-existence,  it  is  a  contradiction  in 
terms  to  conceive  of  him  as  not  existing.  Therefore  he  must 
exist. — See  Morell's  History  of  Modern  Philosophy,  vol.  i.,  p.  172. 

15.  What  are  the  ohjections  to  that  argument  ? 

While  we  must  ever  regard  this  and  all  other  d  priori  argu- 
ments for  the  existence  of  God  as  of  value  in  the  way  of  demon- 
strating the  fact,  that  although  the  idea  of  God  cannot  be  strictly 
said  to  be  innate,  yet  it  is  complimentary  to  reason,  i.  c,  when  once 
presented,  always  afterwards  felt  to  be  necessary  to  satisfy  the  de- 
mands of  reason,  nevertheless  we  cannot  regard  this  argument 
as  being,  when  standing  alone,  a  valid  demonstration  of  the  ex- 
istence of  God.  The  conceptions  of  the  human  mind,  whether 
clear  or  vague,  can  not  be  held  as  the  certain  measure  of  real 
objective  existence.  They  can  only  form  the  ground  of  a  ra- 
tional probability,  and  thus  enhance  the  credibility  of  other  argu- 
ments. 

16.  On  ivhat  grounds  do  the  German  transcendental  philoso- 
pikers  found  their  belief  in  the  being  of  a  God  ? 

Schleicrmachcr,  and  his  German  and  English  followers,  as 
Coleridge,  Morell,  and  others,  place  the  foundation  of  this  divine 


CAN   IT   BE   LOGICALLY   DEMONSTRATED  ?  19 

knowledge  in  the  feeling  of  absolute  and  infinite  dependence. 
This  they  claim  to  he  an  inseparable  element  of  every  man's  self- 
consciousness,  and  they  represent  this  feeling  as  apprehending 
God  immediately  as  he  is  in  himself,  an  infinite  being,  embracing 
and  conditioning  our  dependent  being  upon  every  hand.  Schell- 
ing.  Cousin,  and  others  maintain  that  human  reason,  in  its  high- 
est exercise,  is  capable  of  an  immediate  intuition  of  the  infinite, 
and  thus  God  is  directly  seen  in  his  all-perfect  being,  by  the 
appropriate  organ  of  such  an  infinite  knowledge  in  the  human 
soul. 

Both  of  these  pretended  ways  of  the  immediate  and  adequate 
apprehension  of  the  infinite  are  disproved  by  the  self-evident 
principle  that  the  mind  in  every  thought  contains  the  conception 
Avhich  it  forms  of  its  object,  but  a  finite  mind  cannot  contain  an 
infinite  thought.  We  may  know  that  God  is  infinite,  but  we 
can  form  only  a  finite  conception  of  him.  Every  form  of  human 
consciousness,  whether  of  thought  or  of  feeling,  is  finite,  and  de- 
pends upon  conditions,  but  the  infinite  has  no  limits  or  condi- 
tions. We  believe  God  to  be  infinite,  but  we  positively  conceive 
of  him  only  as  indefinitely  great,  that  is,  of  a  degree  of  greatness 
from  which  we  remove  one  by  one  the  limitations  which  inhere  in 
all  human  thinking. — See  Hansel's  Limits  of  Kcligious  Thought, 
pp.  101,  122,  124,  and  Sir  William  Hamilton's  Discussions,  pp. 
29,  30. 

17.  What  is  the  Cosmological  argument,  or  that  argument 
lohich  deduces  the  necessary  existence  of  a  First  Self-existent 
Cause  from  the  fact  that  the  tvorld  certainly  exists,  and  is  evi- 
dently an  effect  ? 

Whatever  exists  must  have  a  cause,  either  without  or  within 
itself  It  must  either  have  at  some  time  been  brought  into  ex- 
istence by  some  preexistent  cause,  or  it  must  have  the  necessary 
cause  of  its  own  existence  in  itself  If  it  have  the  necessary  cause 
of  its  own  existence  in  itself,  it  must  be  eternal,  for  the  same 
necessary  cause  must  have  operated  equally  at  all  times,  and  if 
there  ever  was  a  time  when  it  was  not,  it  never  could  have 
caused  itself  to  be. 

Thus  far  even  the  Atheist,  Pantheist,  Materialist,  and  Idealist 
all  agree  with  us.     They  maintain,  however,  under  different  forms, 


20  THE   BEING   OF   GOD. 

the  view  that  the  world  itself  is  eternal.     We  maintain  that  the 
world  is  not  self-existent,  but  an  effect  created  by  a  God. 

18.  What  is  a  cause,  and  lolience  do  ive  derive  our  conviction 
that  every  effect  must  have  a  cause  ? 

A  spiritual  cause  is  a  spirit  originating  its  own  acts  and  pro- 
ducing its  effect  out  of  its  own  energy.  An  effect  is  some  new 
thing  or  change  produced  by  the  power  or  efficiency  residing  in 
the  cause. 

"A  material  cause  consists  always  in  two  or  more  material 
substances  with  their  active  properties  sustaining  a  certain  rela- 
tion to  one  another  in  a  certain  state,  and  the  effect  is  the  same 
substances  in  another  state.  Thus,  when  a  hammer  is  made  to 
strike  a  stone  and  break  it,  the  cause  consists  of  the  hammer  and 
stone  in  one  state  and  relation,  and  the  effect  the  hammer  and 
stone  in  the  state  they  are  after  the  blow." — McCosh,  Divine 
Government,  p.  100. 

The  conviction  that  every  effect  must  have  a  cause  is  an  origi- 
nal and  essential  law  of  our  intelligence,  which,  instead  of  being 
deduced  as  a  consequence  from  exjierience,  is  involved  in  those 
elementary  processes  of  thought  upon  which  all  experience  de- 
pends. The  judgment  is  not  simply,  that  every  change  which 
we  have  ever  seen  did,  have  a  cause,  but  that  every  change  of 
every  kind,  past,  present,  and  future,  must  have  a  cause,  and 
further,  a  cause  adequate  to  produce  the  effect. 

19.  Hoio  can  it  he  proved  that  the  luorld  is  an  effect  ? 

The  entire  world,  in  all  of  its  departments,  as  far  as  it  is  cog- 
nizable by  our  senses,  consists  of  the  results  of  past  changes  and 
of  present  changes,  proceeding  in  continual  succession.  Now 
cither  one  of  these  three  things  must  be  true  : 

I.  Either  there  must  be  supposed  one  or  more  eternal,  self- 
existent  beings,  which  have  the  cause  of  their  existence  necessarily 
in  themselves,  and  which  cause  all  the  succession  of  dependent 
changes  which  we  see  proceeding  around  us. 

Or,  II.  All  these  dependent  changes  which  we  see  j)assing 
around  us  are  only  the  necessary  modifications  of  the  one  univer- 
sal, necessary,  self-existent  substance.  This  is  the  Pantheistic 
theory,  and  is  disproved  below,  under  question  35. 


THE   WORLD   AN    EFFECT.  21 

Or,  III.  The  endless  succession  of  changes  which  make  up  the 
phenomenal  world  must  have  gone  on  from  all  eternity  without 
beginning  or  cause.  This  is  self-evidently  absurd.  Every  change 
is  an  effect,  and  every  effect  must  have  a  cause  ;  but  an  infinite 
chain  of  changes,  each  being  in  turn  first  effect  and  then  cause, 
is  impossible,  because  an  infinite  chain  of  effects  demand  an 
adequate  cause,  even  more  imperatively  than  a  single  effect.  Thus 
the  son,  though  begotten,  is  not  caused  by  the  father.  1st.  Be- 
cause the  father  does  not  contrive  the  son,  nor  understand  the 
process  of  his  production ;  and  2d,  because  the  father  is  himself 
caused,  and  a  thousand  generations  of  men  demand  a  cause  a 
thousand  times  more  imperatively  than  one. 

This  dream  of  an  eternal  succession  is  also  annihilated  by  the 
testimony  of  human  history  and  the  science  of  geology,  (see  be- 
low, questions  20-22),  and  by  the  result  of  universal  experience. 
1st.  That  contrivance  necessarily  implies  intelligence  ;  and  2d. 
That  intelligence  is  always  the  cause,  never  the  result  of  organ- 
ization. 

20.  What  is  the  historical  argument  against  the  eternity  of 
the  world  ? 

If  the  world  be  eternal,  the  human  race  must  have  existed  for 
ever,  and  have  descended  to  the  present  through  an  eternal  suc- 
cession of  generations.  Otherwise,  if  although  the  world  be  eter- 
nal, the  human  race  began  to  exist  in  time,  we  would  still  be 
forced  to  believe  in  a  God  who  created  the  human  race.  But 
every  branch  of  human  history,  sacred  and  profane  (and  admitt- 
ing, for  argument's  sake,  that  the  books  of  Moses  are  merely  hu- 
man productions,  they  are  still  as  trustworthy  history  as  any 
other),  the  mythologies,  traditions,  records  of  all  races  and  na- 
tions, concur  with  comparative  philology,  or  the  science  of  the 
origin  and  relations  of  human  languages,  and  with  ethnology,  or 
the  science  of  the  origin  and  distribution  of  races  of  men,  in  con- 
verging to  some  more  or  less  remote  jDoint  in  the  past  as  the  start- 
ing point  of  the  human  family.  Also  other  arguments,  "  such  as 
the  recency  of  science  ;  the  vast  capacity  of  the  species  for  general 
or  collective  improvement,  contrasted  with  the  little  progress  which 
they  have  yet  made  ;  the  expansive  force  of  population,  and  yet  its 
shortness  still  from  the  territory  and  resources  of  the  globe ;" 


22  THE   BEING   OF   GOD, 

all  alike  prove  that  tlie  human  race  began  to  be  at  a  compara- 
tively recent  period. — See  Chalmer's  N.  Theology,  vol.  i.,  book 
1,  chapter  5. 

21.  What  is  the  geological  argument  against  the  eternity  of 
the  loorld  ? 

Geology  has  clearly  established  tlie  fact  that  the  earth  has  ex- 
isted many  myriads  of  years,  and  passed  through  many  successive 
physical  revolutions.  In  the  progress  of  these  successive  revolu- 
tions different  races  of  plants  and  animals  were  successively  brought 
into  existence,  as  the  physical  conditions  of  the  earth  suited  their 
respective  habits.  Thus,  in  order,  the  most  elementary  vegetable 
forms  preceded  the  animal,  and  of  these  last  the  fish,  the  reptile, 
the  bird,  the  mammiferous  quadruped,  and,  last  of  all,  man  ap- 
peared in  succession.  The  geologic  record  proves  that  in  many 
sudden  catas trophies  whole  races  of  plants  and  animals  were  de- 
stroyed, and  then  new  and  distinct  species  introduced. 

In  connection  with  these  two  facts  all  naturalists  maintain 
these  two  principles,  1st,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  the  de- 
velopment of  one  species  or  family  of  plants  or  animals  into  an- 
other ;  and  2d,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  the  spontaneous 
generation  of  new  species.  Consequently  geology  demonstrates 
not  only  one,  but  many  successive  acts  of  absolute  creation.  "  The 
infidel,"  says  Hugh  Miller  (Footprints  of  the  Creator,  p.  301), 
"  who  in  this  late  age  of  the  world  attemjjts  falling  back  uj)on 
the  fiction  of  an  infinite  succession  would  be  laughed  to  scorn." 

22.  What  loas  the  famous  development  theory  as  set  forth  hy 
the  author  of  the  "  Vestiges  of  the  Natural  History  of  Creation" 
and  hoiv  may  it  he  disproved  ? 

The  gi-eat  astronomer  La  Place  originated  the  philosoj^hical 
suggestion  which  has  always  since  been  known  as  the  Nebular 
Hy})othesis.  Pie  supposed  that  the  stellar  universe  originated 
from  an  indefinitely  rarificd,  and  intensely  hot  nebulous  matter, 
agitated  by  a  uniform  gyratory  motion,  and  that  from  this  origin 
the  whole  universe  has  gradually  been  evolved,  tlirough  the  cal- 
culable operation  of  the  known  laws  of  matter.  This  is  cosmical 
development,  or  the  development  of  worlds.  La  Place  treated 
this  theory  chiefly  in  relation  to  astronomy,  and  claimed  as  its 


DEVELOPMENT    THEORY.  23 

most  prominent  practical  confirmation  the  existence  of  large  ne- 
bulous masses  in  the  remote  abysses  of  space,  which  the  telescope 
could  not  resolve  into  stars,  and  which  were,  as  he  insisted,  ne- 
bulas in  the  process  of  world  development. 

The  anonymous  author  of  the  Vestiges  of  Creation,  whose 
work  has  excited  such  general  attention,  has  carried  out  this 
theory  of  development  into  its  furthest  consequences  and  most 
detailed  appHcations,  to  the  successive  origination  of  new  species 
of  plants  and  animals,  and  to  all  the  contemporaneous  geologic 
changes  of  the  earth  ;  thus  leading  into  the  question  of  organic 
development.  He  maintains  "  that  the  simplest  and  most  primi- 
tive type  gave  birth  to  a  type  superior  to  it  in  compositeness  of 
organization  and  endowment  of  faculties,  and  this  again  to  the 
next  higher,  and  so  on  to  the  highest."  Every  organic  existence 
being  developed  by  successive  stages,  the  higher  from  the  lower, 
and  all  at  last  from  an  original  "  fire  mist,"  by  an  inherent  laAv 
of  progression. 

This  theory  does  not  necessarily  lead  to  theoretical  atheism, 
since  the  creation  of  so  wonderfully  pregnant  a  "  fire  mist"  would 
as  much  require  an  original  intelligent  cause  as  the  immediate 
creation  of  the  world  in  the  Bible  sense.  It  leads,  however,  to 
practical  atheism,  since  it  denies  all  providential  intervention,  and 
it  sets  forth  man  as  developed  through  the  tadpole,  by  virtue  of 
the  ultimate  mechanical  and  chemical  properties  inherent  in  mat- 
ter, instead  of  being  created  in  the  image  of  God. 

We  have  to  say,  I.  With  reference  to  La  Place's  Nebular 
Hypothesis,  or  theory  of  cosmical  development,  that  it  is  now 
generally  held  by  Christian  philosophers  and  astronomers  as  a 
highly  probable  speculation,  agreeing  with  and  interpreting  all 
known  facts.  They  agree,  however,  also  in  maintaining  it  only 
as  an  approximate  account  of  the  successive  stages  in  which  the 
infinite  Creator,  having  previously  created  all  things  out  of  nothing 
by  the  word  of  his  power,  brought  his  work  in  the  exercise  of 
his  ceaseless  providential  agency  to  its  present  condition.  They 
maintain  these  two  principles,  (1.)  That  as  far  as  it  is  known, 
without  exception,  God  always  perfects  his  works  from  an  ele- 
mentary commencement,  by  a  regular  method,  and  through  suc- 
cessions of  time.  That  is,  he  works  by  fixed  law.  And  for  this 
there  appears  this  wise  and  beneficent  reason,  that  if  God  should 


24  THE   BEING   OF   GOD, 

exercise  his  infinite  power  any  otherwise,  his  working  would  be 
perfectly  inscrutable  to  his  intelligent  creatures,  and  therefore  to 
them  a  revelation  of  his  power  merely,  and  not  of  his  wisdom. 
(2.)  That  law  is  never  a  cause,  but  only  the  method  according  to 
which  a  cause  acts.  It  is  infinitely  absurd  therefore  to  offer  the 
Nebular  Hypothesis  as  a  rational  account  of  the  way  in  which  the 
universe  might  have  come  into  its  present  condition  without  either 
an  infinitely  intelligent  and  powerful  creating  cause  or  an  infin- 
itely intelligent  and  jjowcrful  providential  upholder  and  director. 
II.  With  respect  to  the  further  application  of  this  theory  to 
the  explanation  of  the  origination  of  the  simplest  organic  beings 
from  inorganic  material  elements  in  the  first  place,  and  then  the 
gradual  development  through  successive  stages  of  organic  races, 
the  higher  from  the  lower  in  virtue  of  the  inherent  self-acting 
principles  of  nature,  we  have  to  say,  (1.)  As  this  view  is  held  by 
the  author  of  the  "  Vestiges,"  and  generally  by  Deistical  specula- 
tors, it  rests  wholly  upon  an  absurd  idea  of  "  law."  Law  is  only 
the  method  according  to  which  a  cause  acts.  The  law  itself,  as 
well  as  its  effects,  must  be  referred  to  the  cause  which  observes  it. 
The  more  general  and  comprehensive  the  law,  the  more  powerful 
and  intelligent  must  be  the  cause.  (2.)  All  the  leading  natural- 
ists, geologists  and  physiologists  repudiate  this  theory  upon  scien- 
tific gi'ounds,  c.  g.,  L.  Agassiz,  Dr.  Carpenter,  Mr.  A.  Pritchard, 
Hugh  Miller,  Dr.  Hitchcock.  (3.)  Its  pretended  experimentum 
crucis,  the  generation  under  a  galvanic  current  of  small  insects 
without  a  parent  germ,  is  discredited  as  a  mistake  by  the  highest 
scientific  authorities.  (4.)  Hugh  Millei",  in  his  "  Footprints  of 
the  Creator,"  has  annihilated  this  fiction.  He  proves,  a,  That 
one  species  never  developes  into  another,  h,  That  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  spontaneous  generation  ;  that  every  living  thing 
comes  from  a  parent,  c.  That  geology  presents,  on  the  contrary, 
instances  of  the  degradation  of  certain  races,  i.  e.,  a  retrograde 
movement  in  creation  perfectly  inconsistent  with  the  Theory  of 
Development.  (5.)  This  theory  developes  mind  from  matter, 
which  is  absurd,  see  below,  Question  32.  (6.)  The  most  recent 
and  highest  tendencies  of  scientific  speculation  indicate  the  con- 
clusion that  while  all  living  organisms  are  formed  of  matter  and 
are  built  up  by  material /orces,  yet  that  the  vital  princijolc  which 
directs  those  forces  is  wholly  immaterial,  not  subject  to  the  known 


ARGUMENT    FROM   DESIGN.  25 

laws  of  matter,  and  therefore  the  organism  luliicli  that  vital  prin- 
ci2Jle  erects  can  not  he  developed  by  those  laivs. 

23.  What  is  the  Teleological  argument,  or  that  tvhich  estab- 
lishes the  existence  of  God  from  the  existence  of  design  in  his 
works  ? 

We  have  already  proved  that  the  world  must  have  had  a 
cause,  a  cause  distinct  from  and  exterior  to  itself,  since  eternal 
succession  and  successive  development  have  both  been  proved  to 
be  absurd.  In  order  to  prove  that  this  cause  is  a  God,  we  have 
further  to  show  that  this  eternal  self-existent  cause  is  an  intelli- 
gent free  agent,  and  a  righteous  moral  governor. 

Design,  or  the  wise  and  skillful  adaptation  of  means  to  a  cer- 
tain end  according  to  an  evident  purpose,  always  infallibly  proves 
two  things  with  regard  to  the  cause,  1st,  That  it  is  endowed  with 
intelligence  as  well  as  power.  2d.  That  it  is  endowed  with  free 
will,  exercised  in  purpose,  selection,  direction,  etc.  In  other 
words,  that  the  cause  is  a  person,  or  a  plurality  of  persons. 

Now,  God's  universe  in  all  its  parts  is  full  of  design,  as  is  evi- 
dent in  the  balanced  forces  acting  on  such  a  vast  scale  in  astron- 
omy, in  the  laws  of  terrestrial  nature,  so  wonderfully  correlated  to 
each  other,  and  to  the  wider  laws  of  the  universe  beyond.  It  is 
preeminently  manifested  in  the  wonderful  organizations  of  plants 
and  animals,  and  above  all,  of  man,  and  the  adaptation  of  each 
to  his  peculiar  circumstances  and  purjDoses  of  life.  It  is  mani- 
fested also  in  the  constitution  of  the  human  soul,  which  is  a 
created  effect,  the  relation  of  the  soul  to  the  body,  the  adaptation 
of  the  world  to  the  moral  constitution  of  man,  and  the  mutual 
relations  of  intellect,  will,  emotion,  and  conscience  in  man.  It  is 
manifested  also  in  the  constitution  of  man  as  a  social  being,  in 
the  organization  of  all  communities,  conjugal,  family,  and  na- 
tional, and  in  the  universal  history  of  the  race,  etc.,  etc.  For  the 
illustration  of  this  great  argument,  see  Palcy  on  design  in  organ- 
ized life,  Chalmers  and  Brougham  on  design  as  exhibited  in  the 
mental  and  moral  constitution  of  man,  and  Hugh  Miller  on  de- 
sign as  exhibited  in  the  successive  creations  during  the  geologic 
eras. — See  Ps.  xix.,  1,  and  Rom,  i.,  20. 

24.  Hoio  do  ICC  derive  the  conviction  that  design  universally 


26  THE   BEING   OF   GOD. 

This  principle  necessarily  resolves  itself  into  the  more  ele- 
mentary one  above  stated,  viz.,  that  every  effect  must  have  a 
cause.  Every  work  evidencing  design  is  an  effect.  The  real 
nature  of  every  effect  proves  as  incontestibly,  by  force  of  the  essen- 
tial laws  of  reason,  the  nature  of  the  cause  from  wliich  it  springs, 
as  the  mere  fact  of  the  effect  proves  the  mere  fact  of  the  cause. 
A  great  effect  proves  a  powerful  cause.  An  intelligible  effect 
proves  an  intelligent  cause.  A  design  not  understood  may  to  us 
prove  nothing  with  regard  to  the  cause  from  which  it  springs  ; 
but  the  instant  we  do  understand  it,  that  instant  we  must  at- 
tribute to  it  intelligence  and  purj)ose  in  addition  to  eflBciency, 

Here  we  are  necessarily  brought  to  the  decision  of  the  great 
question  presented  by  the  Materialists.  They  hold  that  there  is 
but  one  substance  in  the  universe  to  which  the  phenomena  of 
mind  and  matter  are  alike  to  be  referred,  because  intelligence  is 
only  one  of  several  special  results  of  material  organization. 

Now,  all  we  know  of  power,  of  intelligence,  of  free  choice,  of 
feeling,  we  derive  from  consciousness.  But  consciousness  presents 
these  as  always  the  ultimate,  never  the  derived  or  constituted, 
attributes  of  ourselves.  And,  moreover,  as  far  as  our  experience 
ever  reaches,  free  intelligence  is  always  the  cause  of  organization, 
and  never  organization  or  material  aggregation  the  cause  of  intel- 
ligence. The  reason  of  the  case,  therefore,  and  the  analogy  of  an 
unexceptive  experience,  absolutely  uniform  and  universal,  con- 
strain us  to  refer  all  intelligible  design  to  intelligence,  and  never 
intelligence  to  organization,  or  any  kind  of  material  evolution. — 
See  Sir  William  Hamilton's  Lectures  on  Metaphysics,  Lecture  2. 

25.  What  are  the  2^rincipal  objections  urged  against  this  argu- 
ment from  design y  and  hoiv  may  they  he  answered  ? 

I.  Hume,  (see  Essays,  vol.  i.,  p.  157,)  as  quoted  by  Chalmers, 
says  that  the  sole  rational  source  of  our  conviction  that  design 
implies  intelligence  is  our  experience  in  time  past  that  such  and 
such  designs  were  produced  by  an  intelligent  cause.  If  we  see  a 
house,  a  watch,  or  a  ship,  we  certainly  know  that  they  were  formed 
by  skillful  men,  because  we  have  anterior  exj)ericncc  of  the  pro- 
duction of  precisely  such  effects  by  such  causes.  But  tlie  world, 
he  maintains,  is  altogether  a  "  peculiar  effect;"  and  since  we  have 
no  experience  whatever  of  world-making,  so  we  have  no  reason  to 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWEEED.  27 

conclude  that  the  apparent  contrivances  of  nature  are  the  product 
of  intelligence. 

To  this  we  answer  :  1st.  That  design  and  intelligence  are 
correlative  terms,  it  is  impossible  for  a  sane  mitid  to  separate  them. 
An  intelligible  design,  wherever  seen,  must  suggest  intelligence. 
2d.  All  our  experience  leads  to  the  same  result,  viz.,  not  merely 
that  some  instances  of  design  have  been  produced  by  intelligence, 
but  that  all  design  is  always  and  only  so  produced.  3d.  The 
science  of  geology  does  bring  an  instance  of  world-making  within 
the  circle  of  our  investigations,  and  we  do  practically  find,  as  we 
were  assured  upon  a  priori  principles  we  would,  that  the  same 
laws  of  cause  and  effect,  of  intelligence  and  design,  prevail  in 
world-making  that  prevail  in  every  human  art. 

II.  It  is  objected  that  we  arbitrarily  stop  short  with  this  argu- 
ment without  leading  it  to  its  legitimate  conclusion  ;  for  if  the 
world  must  have  a  cause,  so  much  more  must  God  ;  and  if  the 
world  must  have  a  designer,  so  much  more  must  God. 

We  answer  :  1st.  An  infinite  series  of  dependent  causes  is  re- 
jected as  absurd  by  reason  and  disproved  as  false  by  science,  there- 
fore the  eternal  must  be  self-existent  and  uncaused.  To  this 
conclusion  science  leads,  and  in  it  reason  rests,  although  the  nature 
of  self-existence  can  never  be  comprehended  by  a  finite  mind. 
2d.  The  world  and  human  souls  being  effects,  or  something  new 
produced  by  causes,  present  indubitable  traces  of  design;  but  God, 
being  self-existent,  presents  no  evidence  of  design.  Self-existent 
intelligence  no  more  suggests  the  idea  of  design  than  self-existent 
chaos. 

III.  M.  Aug.  Comte,  the  great  apostle  of  the  Positive  Phil- 
osophy, maintains  that  human  reason  has  to  deal  with  phenomena 
and  their  order,  or  laws  of  succession  solely,  and  that  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  either  causes  or  design.  He  says  that  the 
adaptations  of  elements  and  organs  in  nature  are  nothing  more 
than  "  conditions  of  existence."  If  these  were  absent  there  would 
be  no  existence,  and  they  are  jiresent  only  because  tliey  arc  neces- 
sary to  the  existence  in  question.  Where  the  circumstances 
proper  to  the  life  of  fish  exist  there  fish  are  found.  "  Only  those 
stars  are  inhabited  which  arc  inhabitable." 

To  this  we  answer  :  1st.  The  human  mind  always  has,  and 
of  rational  necessity  must  discuss  causes.     Laws  account  for  no- 


28  THE    BEING    OF    GOD. 

thing,  they  merely  discover  how  causes  act.  2d.  Happily  con- 
trived "  conditions  of  existence"  are  the  very  marks  of  design  for 
"which  we  argue,  hut  of  necessity  there  must  he  a  designing  cause. 
A  lake  is  the  jilace  for  a  fish  to  live  in,  hut  no  fish  will  live  there 
until  he  is  made  or  put  there.  A  star  might  he  hahitahle  for 
ever  without  heing  inhabited.  3d.  A  large  part  of  the  design 
with  which  God's  Avorks  arc  full  are  not  hare  conditions  of  exist- 
ence, hut  conditions  of  beautiful,  happy,  useful  existence.  Thus 
the  symmetry  of  the  human  frame,  and  the  relation  of  the  eye 
and  taste  to  beauty,  are  not  mere  conditions  of  existence,  but  the 
work  of  a  God,  whose  thoughts  are  beautiful,  wise,  and  benevo- 
lent, as  Avell  as  eflective. 

IV.  It  is  objected  by  many  that  the  argument  from  existing 
dependent  creatures  to  a  first  cause,  and  from  design  in  the  world 
to  an  intelligent  designer,  although  valid  as  far  as  it  goes,  could 
not  possibly  lead  us  to  the  knowledge  of  an  infinite  God.  The 
universe  is  only  finite.  The  highest  conclusion,  therefore,  that 
we  ought  to  form  from  the  premises  is,  that  a  great  though  finite 
being  exists  adequate  to  produce  the  actual  eftect. 

To  this  we  answer  :  We  not  only  admit  but  insist  upon  the 
fact,  that  all  the  modes  of  human  consciousness,  feeling,  as  well 
as  thought,  being  finite,  we  can  never  positively  embrace  in  our 
minds  the  idea  of  an  infinite  being.  This  arises  from  the  essential 
limitations  of  our  own  minds.  We  must  believe  in  the  existence 
of  the  infinite,  though  our  highest  jiositive  conception  of  God  is 
that  of  a  being  indefinitely  great,  {.  e.,  we  set  no  limits  to  our 
view  of  any  of  his  attributes  in  any  direction.  Precisely  to  this 
result  does  the  argument  from  design  lead  us.  We  believe  that 
the  world  is  finite  only  from  rational  necessity,  not  as  the  result 
of  experience.  To  us  it  is  indefinitely  gi-eat.  The  microscope  and 
the  telescope  have  alike  failed  to  see  through  creation  ;  on  either 
hand  it  reaches  indefinitely  beyond  our  faculties  of  perception. 
Science  of  the  infinite  and  absolute  is  impossible,  but  faith  in 
them  is  necessary  to  reason.  We  can  not  think  of  time  or  space 
without  believing  in  eternity  and  immensity.  We  can  not  think 
of  dependent  causes  without  thinlcing  of  one  cause  from  which 
all  the  rest  spring.  We  can  not  think  of  finite  and  dependent 
being  without  thinking  of  independent  and  absolute  being. — See 
Morell's  History  of  Moral  Philosophy,  vol.  ii.,  App.,  p.  645,  and 


MORAL   ARGUMENT.  29- 

Introduction,  pp.  57-60.  "  We  can  not  think  the  divine  attri- 
butes as  in  themselves  they  are,  we  can  not  think  God  without 
impiety,  unless  we  also  implicitly  confess  our  impotence  to  think 
him  worthily ;  and  if  we  should  assert  that  God  is  as  we  think,  or 
can  affirm  him  to  be,  we  actually  blaspheme.  For  the  Deity  is 
adequately  inconceivable,  is  adequately  ineffable,  since  human 
thought  and  human  language  are  equally  incompetent  to  his  in- 
finities."— Sir  William  Hamilton's  Lectures  on  Metaphysics,  Ap- 
pendix, p.  692;  and  see  also  Hansel's  Limits  of  Religious  Thought, 
Lecture  3,  Note  11  on  that  Lecture. 

26.  What  argument  for  the  being  of  a  God  may  he  derived 
from  the  Sense  of  Dependence  tohich  is  common  to  all  men  ? 

The  religious  instinct,  which  is  one  of  the  most  universal  and 
indestructible  attributes  of  human  nature,  is  constituted  of  two 
elements  :  1st.  an  intimate  and  inseparable  sense  of  dependence 
which  always  accompanies  our  self-consciousness  ;  and  2d,  con- 
science, including  a  sense  of  moral  accountability.  "  With  the 
first  development  of  consciousness  there  grows  up,  as  part  of  it, 
the  innate  feeling  that  our  life,  natural  and  spiritual,  is  not  in  our 
own  power  to  sustain  or  prolong  ;  that  there  is  One  above  us  on 
whom  we  are  dependent,  whose  existence  we  learn  and  whose 
presence  we  realize  by  the  same  instinct  of  prayer." — Mausel's 
Limits  of  Religious  Thought,  p.  120.  This  sense  of  dependence 
has  often,  in  the  absence  of  knowledge,  been  prostituted  to  vari- 
ous superstitions,  but  its  universal  presence,  under  all  forms  of 
faith,  x'l'o^'G''^  the  being  of  a  God. 

27.  State  the  a.rgument  for  the  existence  of  God  derived  from 
Conscience.  ^ 

Conscience  is  a  universal  and  indestructible  principle  of  human 
nature.  It  asserts,  even  when  it  is  unable  to  enforce,  its  sujireme 
authority,  as  the  organ  of  an  ultimate  law,  over  all  the  active 
powers  of  the  soul.  Now,  if  there  be  no  God,  universal  conscience 
must  be  a  lie,  since  its  right  to  command  over  inclination  and 
passion  can  be  derived  only  from  a  superior  authority,  whose 
right  it  is  to  reign.  Conscience  essentially  involves  a  sense  of 
moral  accountability,  and  in  the  case  of  the  transgressor  a  fearful 


J 


30  THE   BEING   OF   GOD. 

looking  for  of  judgment.     Hence  the  universal  prevalence  among 
men  of  expiatory  sacrifices  and  penances. — Mansel,  p.  122. 

These  two,  a  sense  of  dependence  and  of  moral  accountability, 
constituting  the  religious  instinct  universally  j^revalent  among 
men,  and  proving  that  God  must  be  a  j^erson,  endowed  with  intel- 
ligence and  sovereign  and  righteous  will,  give  us  our  first  conception 
of  God,  which  is  afterwards  corroborated  and  enlarged  by  the  study 
of  his  works  and  of  his  word.  As  these  are  the  primary  sources 
of  our  faith  in  God,  so  they  exert  immeasurably  the  most  preva- 
lent influence  in  maintainino;  and  enforciu";  that  faith  amons;  men, 

28.    What  is  the  Historical  argument  for  the  being  of  a  God  '^ 

Several  arguments  for  the  being  of  a  God  may  be  derived  from 
history. 

I.  Men  of  all  nations,  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  differing 
among  themselves  in  all  respects  susceptible  of  change,  have  pro- 
fessed and  acted  upon  this  belief  Man  is  as  essentially  a  religions 
as  he  is  a  rational  animal.  Either  the  nature  of  man  is  a  lie,  or 
there  is  a  God.  Cicero  says,  "  What  nation  is  there,  or  what  race 
of  men  which  has  not,  without  any  previous  instruction,  some 
idea  of  the  gods  ?  Now,  tliat  in  which  all  men  agree  must  neces- 
sarily be  true." 

II.  The  student  of  universal  history  will  find  evident  traces  of 
design  running  through  and  giving  significance  to  the  relative  bear- 
ing of  all  events.     God  is  as  plainly  in  history  as  he  is  in  creation. 

III.  History,  as  shown  above  (question  20),  proves  that  the 
human  race  is  of  recent  origin,  and  therefore  has  been  created. 

IV.  Godliness  has  always  worked  beneficially  for  human  na- 
ture, having,  practically,  "  the  promise  of  the  life  that  now  is." 
Every  experiment  of  national  Atheism  has  been  morally,  socially, 
and  politically  disastrous. 

29.   What  is  the  argument  for  the  being  of  a  God  derived  from 
the  i^hcnomena  of  Scripture  ? 

The  only  way  in  which  the  existence  of  God  can  be  known  to 
us  at  all  is  by  some  revelation  of  himself.  Nature  and  providence 
are  as  much  revelations  of  God  as  Scripture  ;  and  inspired  Scrip- 
ture, miracles,  and  prophecy  are  as  much  his  works,  and  more 
clearly  manifest  power,  intelligence,  goodness,  and  righteousness. 


SUMMARY   OF   EVIDENCE.  31 

than  does  cither  nature  or  providence.  All  the  evidences  of  Christi- 
anity, which  are  spread  out  in  the  third  chapter  of  this  volume, 
which  prove  that,  if  there  he  a  God  Christianity  is  a  revelation 
from  him,  also  just  as  legitimately  prove  that  there  is  a  God, 
since  these  are  divine  works.  We  are  under  the  same  necessity 
of  accounting  rationally  for  the  phenomena  of  Scripture  that  we  are 
of  accounting  for  the  phenomena  of  creation.  Thus,  1st,  miracles 
and  prophecy  are  undoubted  facts  established  by  testimony.  But 
miracles  and  prophecy  are  inconceivable  except  as  act^  of  a  God. 
2d,  The  Scriptures  themselves  are  evidently  the  work  of  a  super- 
human intelligence. — See  chapter  3d,  questions  13  and  14.  3d. 
The  feeble  and  crude  notion  of  God  furnished  by  natural  religion, 
is  by  revelation  taken  up,  completed,  glorified,  and  justified  to 
the  reason  and  conscience.  4th.  The  spmtual  power  of  Christi- 
anity as  an  experimental  system  in  the  individual  and  in  all  com- 
munities, in  j)roving  its  suitableness  to  the  highest  wants  of  hu- 
man nature,  proves  also  the  being  of  a  God. 

30,  State  summarily  the  amount  of  'knowledge  concerning  God 
we  derive  from  the  foregoing  sources. 

I.  Our  constitutional  sense  of  dependence  and  of  moral  ac- 
countability give  us  spontaneously  our  primary  elemental  notion 
of  God,  and  assurance  of  his  existence. 

II.  Keasoning  upon  all  existences  and  events  known  to  us 
upon  the  two  principles,  (1,)  that  every  effect  must  have  a  cause  ; 
(2,)  that  the  power,  intelligence  and  benevolence  exercised  by  the 
cause  in  any  special  act  of  causation  may  be  argued  from  their 
traces  in  the  efiect.  We  find,  a,  that  God  is  the  eternal,  self- 
existent,  first  cause,  and  b,  that  he  is  indefinitely  powerful,  wise, 
free  of  will  and  benevolent. 

III.  Keflecting  upon  the  nature  of  intelligence  and  free  will, 
and  their  relation  to  organization  as  always  its  cause,  never  its 
efiect,  as  developed  in  our  own  experience,  we  rise  by  necessary 
inference  to  the  conclusion  that  God,  as  a  free  intelligence,  must 
be  a  personal  spirit. 

IV.  Reflecting  upon  the  phenomena  of  conscience,  and  upon 
the  constitution  of  our  emotional  nature  and  the  general  course 
of  providence  in  relation  to  the  law  of  conscience,  we  arc  neces- 
sarily led  to  the  conclusion  that  God  is  also  a  moral  governor, 


32  THE   BEING   OF   GOD. 

who  speaks  throiigh  conscience  and  wlio  will  vindicate  its  sanc- 
tions, because  lie  himself  is  a  holy  and  righteous  being. 

V.  From  the  profound  constitution  of  our  nature,  although 
we  are  utterly  incapable  of  forming  any  commensurate  conception 
of  the  infinite  and  absolute,  yet  we  must,  as  all  men  do,  affirm 
their  existence,  and  that  they  meet  in  the  self-existent  and  in- 
comprehensible God. 

This  much  we  may  now,  under  the  noonday  ligJit  of  revela- 
tion, certainly  deduce  from  the  phenomena  of  nature  as  to  the 
being  and  attributes  of  God  ;  but  before  the  light  of  revelation 
no  man  was  able  to  see  thus  much,  nor  to  affirm  with  confidence 
even  what  he  did  see. 

VI.  From  the  diligent  and  rational  study  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, with  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  shall  attain 
to  a  complete  theology,  as  far  as  that  is  possible  to  man  on  earth. 

31.   What  is  Atheism,  and  hoivfar  is  it  possible  ? 

Atheism  is  the  denial  of  God,  Of  Atheists  there  are  three 
classes.  1st.  Those  who  confessedly  deny  the  being  of  any  God  ; 
such  as  those  who  believe  in  an  eternal  succession  of  things  as 
they  are,  or  in  a  successive  development  of  nature  in  \irtue  of 
inherent  mechanical  laws,  e.  g.,  Comte,  etc.  2d.  Those  who,  while 
admitting  God  nominally  deny  any  of  his  essential  constituent 
attributes.  In  this  sense  the  Pantheist,  who  denies  the  person- 
ality of  God,  and  who  confounds  him  with  the  universe,  is  really, 
though  not  nominally,  an  Atheist,  since  it  makes  little  difference 
whether  we  say  that  the  world  is  God,  or  that  God  is  the  world. 
3d.  To  the  same  end  tends  practically,  and  by  logical  though  not  by 
confessed  consequence,  all  materialism,  which  makes  intelligence 
the  result  not  the  cause  of  physical  organization,  and  of  all  natur- 
alism, which,  while  verbally  admitting  a  distant  God  in  the  first 
inconceivably  remote  act  of  creation,  denies  him  altogether  in  all 
providence  and  sujiernatural  revelation. 

^thoism  is  possible.  1st.  Practically  ;  many  men  live  thus 
without  God  in  the  world.  2d.  Although,  from  the  indestruc- 
tible constitution  of  human  nature,  men  must  believe  in  and  feel 
dependence  upon  some  first  self-existent  being,  and  fear  the  judg- 
ment of  some  righteous  ruler,  yet  through  ignorance  and  want  of 
intellectual  development,  and  through  the  delusive  power  of  so- 


MATERIALISM.  33 

phistical  speculation,  many  men  honestly  reject  as  untrue  one  or 
more  of  the  essential  constituent  attributes  of  God,  so  that  the 
gross  sujjerstition,  or  the  barren  notion  left  in  their  minds  is  not 
Grod.  Not  loving  God,  they  for  a  time  succeed  in  eliminating,  as 
a  matter  of  thought,  his  distasteful  presence. — Kom.  i.,  21-26. 

32.   What  is  Materialism  ? 

As  soon  as  we  begin  to  reflect  we  become  conscious  of  the 
joresence  of  two  eveiywhere  interlaced,  but  always  distinct  classes 
of  phenomena — of  thought,  feeling,  will  on  the  one  hand,  and  of 
extension,  inertia,  etc.,  on  the  other.  Analyze  these  as  we  may, 
we  never  can  resolve  the  one  into  the  other.  The  one  class  we 
come  to  know  through  consciousness,  the  other  through  sensation, 
and  we  know  the  one  as  directly  and  as  certainly  as  the  other  ;  and 
as  we  can  never  resolve  either  into  the  other,  we  refer  the  one  class 
to  a  substance  called  spirit,  and  the  other  class  to  a  substance 
called  matter. 

Materialists  are  a  set  of  superficial  philosophers,  with  whom 
the  phenomena  of  feeling,  conscience  and  will  are  not  intense,  and 
who  have  formed  the  habit  of  looking  too  exclusively  outward  upon 
the  world  present  to  the  senses.  Hence  they  fall  into  the  funda- 
mental eiTor  of  affirming,  1st.  That  there  is  but  one  substance  in 
the  universe,  and  2d.  That  intelligence,  feeling,  conscience,  voli- 
tion, etc.,  are  only  properties  of  matter  under  certain  modifica- 
tions. Intelligence  did  not  create  and  organize  matter,  but  matter, 
organizing  according  to  its  inherent  laws,  evolved  intelligence. 

To  this  we  answer,  1st,  This  is  no  recondite  dispute,  as  some 
Materialists  pretend,  concerning  substance.  The  Materiahst 
knows  that  by  affirming  conscience  to  be  only  a  modification  of 
matter  he  destroys  its  essential  nature — because  if  it  be  material 
it  is  mechanical  and  not  moral.  His  object  doubtless  is  to  reason 
away  the  i^henomena  of  conscience  and  liberty.  2d.  The  tlieory 
is  one-sided.  Our  knowledge  of  thought  and  feeling,  conscience 
and  will,  is  at  least  as  immediate  and  certain  as  our  knowledge  of 
matter.  Neither  should  be  sacrificed  to  the  other.  3d.  It  is  un- 
warrantable dogmatism  arbitrarily  to  refer  the  two  classes  of  phe- 
nomena to  the  same  ground,  while  we  are  utterly  unable  logically 
to  resolve  one  class  into  the  other.  4th.  This  theory  is  inconsist- 
ent with  consciousness  and  experience,  the  solid  grounds  of  all 

3 


34  THE   BEING   OF   GOD. 

our  knowledge  on  this  subject.  (1.)  While  the  senses  are  several, 
and  the  bodily  organization  constantly  changing,  yet  in  every 
comj)lex  experience,  and  through  all  time,  the  central  I,  which 
thinks  and  feels,  is  an  absolute  unit.  (2.)  Matter  is  seen  to  be  in- 
capable of  originating  action — the  central  I  has  the  power  of  ab- 
solute causation.  (3.)  As  far  as  we  ever  see  organization  is  always 
the  result,  never  the  cause  of  intelligence, 

33.  What  is  Idealism  ? 

As  the  Materialist  holds  that  the  sensible  is  the  only  real,  and 
that  mind  is  a  modification  of  matter,  so  the  extreme  Idealist 
holds  that  the  sensitive  and  cognitive  mind  is  the  only  real,  and 
that  the  phenomena  of  the  material  world  are  only  modifica- 
tions of  mind.  When  a  man  sees  or  feels  a  material  object,  the 
thought  or  feeling  of  which  he  is  conscious  is  within  the  mind 
itself.  The  Idealist  argues  consequently  that  all  the  man  really 
knoAvs  is  the  thought  or  feeling  of  which  he  is  conscious,  and  that 
he  can  never  be  rationally  certain  whether  there  is  any  outward 
reality  corresponding  to  that  inward  state  or  not. 

In  the  most  extreme  form  this  tendency  leaves  the  individual 
philosopher  a  solitary  dreamer  in  the  midst  of  the  world.  He  can 
know  nothing  outside  of  himself  and  the  successions  of  his  own 
thoughts.     This  is  the  subjective  Idealism  of  Fichte. 

In  a  lower  degree  this  tendency  leads  to  an  Idealistic  Pan- 
theism, when  all  the  phenomena  of  the  universe,  internal  and 
external,  is  referred  to  the  modifications  of  one  infinite  spirit, 
which  is  God.     Such  is  the  Pantheism  of  Schelling  and  Hegel. 

But  the  phrase,  Idealism,  is  also  applied,  in  a  modified  sense, 
to  those  systems  of  philosophy  which,  while  admitting  the  exist- 
ence both  of  matter  and  mind,  yet  build  themselves  ultimately 
upon  the  unresolvable  first  principles  of  man's  internal  self- con- 
sciousness. 

34.  What  is  Hylozoism  '? 

Hylozoism,  compounded  of  two  Greek  words,  vXtj  wood,  ^w?^ 
life — living,  animated  matter,  designates  a  theory  attributed  to 
Strato  of  Lampsacus,  who,  confounding  life  and  intellect  with 
force  and  motion,  regarded  the  universe  as  a  vast  animal  self-de- 
veloping through  the  plastic  power  of  its  own  inherent  life,  i.  e., 


PANTHEISM.  35 

unconsciously  self-developing  from  eternity. — Ritter,  Hist.  An, 
Phil.,  book  9,  chap.  6. 

35.   What  is  Pantheism  ? 

PantheisEQ,  as  the  etymology  of  the  term  indicates,  signifies 
that  system  which  maintains  that  all  phenomena  of  every  class 
known  to  man,  whether  spiritual  or  material,  are  to  be  referred 
to  but  one  substance,  and  that  the  universal  substance  of  God  ; 
and  thus,  matter  and  mind  being  declared  to  be  only  different 
modifications  of  one  substance.  Pantheism,  from  different  points 
of  view,  assumes  sometimes  a  materialistic  and  at  others  an  ideal- 
istic complexion.     The  Atheist  says  that  there  is  no  God,  the  Pan- 
theist that  every  thing  is  God.     The  Materialist  says  that  all  the 
phenomena  of  the  universe  are  to  be  referred  to  one  substance, 
which  is  matter.     The  Pantheist  says  that  they  are  all  to  be  re- 
ferred to  one  substance,  and  that  the  absolute  substance  of  God. 
Yet  the  Pantheist  differs  from  the  Atheist  and  Materialist  more  in 
the  color  and  tone  than  in  the  essence  of  his  creed.     The  Pan- 
theist's God  is  not  a  self-conscious,  voluntary  person,  separate  from 
his  creation,  but  he  is  that  infinite,  original,  self-existent,  uni- 
versal, unconscious,  impersonal  essence  to  which  all  proper  attri- 
butes belong,  intelligence  as  well  as  the  attraction  of  gravitation, 
whose  infinitely  various  and  ceaseless  modifications  of  substance, 
by  a  necessary  law  of  eternal   self-development,  constitute  all 
things  as  they  succeed  each  other  in  the  universe  of  existence. 
God  is  neither  sun  nor  star,  ocean  nor  mountain,  wind  nor  rain, 
man  nor  beast,  but  these  are  all  fleeting  modifications  of  God. 
God  is  ever  eternally  the  same  himself,  but  he  is  eternally,  and  by 
a  necessary  movement  running  through  these  endless  cycles  of 
self-modification,  coming  to  self-consciousness   only  transiently 
in  individual  men,  as  they  are  born  and  die — and  in  the  highest 
sense  of  all  coming  to  himself  in  the  greatest  men,  those  heroes  in 
whom  all  lesser  men  see  and  worship  God. 

This  general  system,  modified  endlessly  as  to  special  characteris- 
tics, has  prevailed  from  the  dawn  of  speculation  as  the  necessary  goal 
of  those  proud  intellects  wliich  maintain  their  capacity  to  a})pre- 
licnd  directly,  and  to  philospliize  worthily,  upon  the  essential  mys- 
teries of  infinite  and  absolute  being.  It  was  for  ages  before  Christ 
the  dream  of  the  Hindoo  theosophist,  and  of  the  Grecian  Eleatic 
philosopher.    In  modern  times,  from  tlie  days  of  Spinoza  to  tlie  pre- 


/ 


36  THE   BEING   OF   GOD. 

sent,  it  has  been  tauglit,  among  others,  by  Schelling,  Hegel,  Cousin, 
Carlylc,  and  Kalph  Waldo  Emerson.  Among  the  ancient  Greeks, 
and  to  the  present  day  among  the  Hindoos,  the  popular  accompani- 
ment of  this  abstruse  and  atheistical  speculation  has  been  Polythe- 
ism. The  Pantheistic  philosopher,  by  a  sweeping  generalization, 
referred  all  the  powers  of  universal  nature  to  one  subject,  the  All. 
Their  uneducated  cotcmporaries,  unable  to  reach  so  wide  a  general- 
ization, recognized  a  separate  Godinevery  energy  of  nature,  and  thus 
worshipped  Gods  and  Lords  many.  In  modern  times,  on  the  other 
hand,  Polytheism  having  been  for  ever  made  impossible  by  Chistian- 
ity,  the  popular  accompaniment  of  Pantheism  in  Germany,  France, 
England,  and  America  is  the  worship  of  man — sometimes  hero- 
worship,  or  the  worship  of  great  heroic  men — sometimes  of  mankind 
iu  the  mass,  as  the  highest  form  into  which  the  deity  is  ever  devel- 
oped, the  clearest  manifestation  of  God.    This  heresy  is  disproved — 

1st.  By  the  whole  truth  of  human  consciousness.  If  con- 
sciousness teaches  us  anything  clearly  it  is  that  we  ourselves  are 
distinct  individual  persons.  Pantheism  teaches  that  we  are  only 
"  parts  or  particles  of  God,"  springing  from  him  and  returning  to 
him,  yet  always  part  of  him,  as  the  waves  are  part  of  the  sea. 

2d.  By  the  truth  of  all  the  judgments  of  conscience  with  re- 
gard, first,  to  sin;  second,  to  moral  resjponsibility.  Pantheism,  by 
making  every  thing  alike  a  necessary  self-development  of  God, 
makes  sin  impossible,  destroys  all  distinction  between  good  and 
evil,  and  by  denying  the  personality  of  God,  and  by  making  the 
fleeting  personality  of  man  an  illusion  of  his  own  consciousness, 
it  of  course  makes  moral  responsibility  a  myth. 

3d.  By  the  wdiole  argument  from  Design,  (see  above,  question 
23,)  Design  proves  intelligence  and  free  will,  self-conscious  jmr- 
pose,  and  therefore  personality. 

4tli.  Pantheism,  by  referring  the  phenomena  of  mind  and  of 
matter  to  one  substance,  must  oscillate  between  the  absurdities  of 
Materialism  and  of  Idealism.  There  is  a  choice  of  follies,  but  no 
middle  ground. 

5th.  By  the  whole  system  of  historical  testimonies  and  ex- 
perimental evidences  that  establishes  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

6th.  By  the  uniformly  degrading  influence  which  this  system 
has  always  exercised  upon  the  morals  of  every  community  that 
has  drunk  deeply  of  its  spirit. 


4 


CHAPTER    II. 

THEOLOGY     AND    ITS     SOUKCES. 

1.  Holo  may  religion  he  defined  ?  V 

1.  In  the  abstract,  religion  signifies  the  relation  which  man  ae 
an  intellectual  and  spiritual  being  sustains  to  God. 

II.  In  the  concrete,  religion  signifies  (1.)  subjectively,  that 
inward  spiritual  state  and  experience  which  justly  corresj)onds  to 
the  reality  of  our  relations  to  God  ;  thus  a  religious  man  is  one 
who  has  an  inward  religious  experience  ;  (2.)  objectively,  those 
doctrines,  institutions,  and  practical  observances  whereby  these 
relations  of  God  to  man,  and  of  man  to  God  are  revealed  and  pro- 
mulgated, and  the  duties  corresponding  to  those  relations  are 
practiced.  In  this  sense  the  Mahomedan  is  a  false,  and  the  Chris- 
tian a  true  religion. — Dr.  Hodge. 

2.  What  is  THEOLOGY,  and  lioiu  is  it  to  be  distinguished  from 
religion  ? 

The  English  word  ;_theology)  is  derived  from  the  two  Greek 
words,  deog,  Aoy65-,|^signifying  discourse  concerning  God,  the7i  that 
science  which  systematically  comprehends  all  that  is  known  to 
man  concerning  God,  and  our  relations  to  him.  The  terms  the- 
ology and  religion  are  contrasted  thiis : 

Relig;ion  is  practical  and  experimental.  Theology  is  scientific. 
Every  rehgious  man  is  a  theologian  just"  so  far  as  his  Ivnowlcdge 
is  accurate  and  comprehensive.  Every  true  theologian  must  be  a 
religious  man  as  far  as  his  knowledge  is  experimental.  Tlie  more 
accurate  and  comprehensively  systematic  our  religious  knowledge, 
the  more  is  it  a  theology  ;  and  the  more  real  and  practical  our 
knowledge  of  God  becomes,  the  more  is  our  theology  a  religion. 

Theology  is  toreligion  what  physical  science  is  to  the  ])racti- 
cal  arts^  Itis  not  essential,  though  it  would  Be  an  evident  ad- 
vantage,  if  every  artizan  were  a  chemist,  and  every  navigator  an 


J 


38  THEOLOGY   AND   ITS   SOURCES. 

astronomer.  Yet  without  science  all  art  would  be  unintelligent 
and  limited.  Theology  defines  religion,  and  sets  it  upon  a  more 
certain  ground.  It  purifies  it  from  foreign  alloy,  and  defends  it 
from  all  hostile  attacks.  By  making  it  more  intelligent,  it  makes 
it  more  worthy  of  God,  and  more  efiective  for  the  salvation  of 
man. — Gaussen. 

3.  What  is  the  distinction  between  natural  and  revealed  the- 
ology ? 

NaiuxaLtheologyJg  that  science  which  proposes  to  itself  the 
solution  of  these  two  gi-eat  questions,  1st,  Does  God  exist  ?  and 
2d,  What  may  be  legitimately  ascertained  concerning  the  true 
naturc-of  God  in  himself,  and  concerning  his  relations  to  man, 
from  the  principles  of  human  jeiison  and  conscience,  _^or  from  the 
evidences  of  God's  works,  either  in  creation  or  providence.  A 
distinction  here  must  be  carefully  observed  between  that  knowl- 
edge of  God  to  which  the  human  reason  was  able  to  attain  by 
means  of  its  own  unassisted  powers  independently  of  revelation, 
e.  gi,  the  theology  of  Plato  and  Cicero,  and  that  knowledge  of 
God  which  the  human  mind  is  now  competent  to  deduce  from  the 
})heuomena  of  nature  under  the  clear  light  of  a  supernatural  reve- 
lation, e.  g.,  the  theology  of  the  modern  rationahstic  philosophers. 
Natural  theology,  as  reached  by  unassisted  reason,  was  fragmen- 
tary, inconsistent  and  uncertain.  Natural  theology,  as  appropri- 
ated and  vindicated  by  reason  under  the  clear  light  of  revelation, 
is  itself  a  strong  witness  to  the  truth  and  supernatural  origin  of 
that  revelation. 

Kevealcd  theology,  on  the  other  hand,  is  that  science  which 
treats  systematically,  1st,  of  the  evjjhjnces  authenticating  the 
Christian  revelation  as  from  God  ;72d,)of  the  interprujtgiion  of 
the  records  which  transmit  that  revemion  to  us  ;  and  v3dy  of  all 
/  the  information  furnished  by  those  records  of  God  and  his  rela- 
tion to  man,  and  of  man  and  his  relation  to  God. 

4.  What  relation  does  philosophy  sustain  to  theology  ? 

''  Fhiloso])hv  includes,  V^stj  the  systematic  treatment  of  all  that 

the  reason  of  man  teaches  with  regard  toGfi^  and  those  neces- 


sary and  universal  ideas,  e.  (/.,  space  and  time,  cause  and  efiect, 
right  and  wrong,  etc.,  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  all  human  thought. 


PHILOSOPHY   AND    THEOLOGY.  39 

2dj  The  discovery  and  systematic  treatment  of  all  the  known  facts 
of  man's  sjjiritual  nature,  i.  e.,  psychology,  or  the  science  of  mind. 
So)  The  discovery  and  systematic  treatment  of  all  the  known 
acts  of  God's  works  in  material  naturOj  i.  e.,  physical  and  physi- 
ological science  in  all  their  departments.  \,4tl^  The  sj^stematic 
treatjnent  of  all  the  known  facts  of  God's  airection  of  human 
actions  in  the  events  of  history. 

In  its  higher  departments,  philosophy  includes  the  ground  of 
natural  theologj'-^  as  explullSe^  under  the  preceding  question. 

In  all  its  departments  philosophy  sustains  to  revealed  the- 
ology^solely  the  relation  of  an  humble  hanchnaid  ^^UstT/By  dem^ 
onstrating  the  weakness  and  narrow  limits  of  humaix  reason,,  and 
tlie  utter  Impossiliility  of  the  human  mind,  as  at  present  consti- 
tuted, either  solving  or  finally  dismissing  certain  insolvahle  ques- 
tions conditioning  every  system  of  theological  or  philosophical 
thought.  For  "  no  difficulty  emerges  in  theology  which  had  not 
previously  emerged  in  philosophy."  Thus  teaching  "  that  hu- 
mility is  the  cardinal  virtue,  not  only  of  revelation,  but  of  rea- 
son," (Sir  W.  Hamilton's  Discussions,  p.  588),  and  thus  proving 
the  necessity  for  a  supernatural  revelation,  and  inculcating  the 
necessity  of  a  docile  spirit  upon  the  part  of  the  interpreters  of 
the  inspired  record,  f'  2d^'  By  helping  us  to  understand  more  accu- 
rately the  constitution  of  the  human  soul  and  the  works  of  God 
in  creation,  and  thus  to  interpret  more  intelligently  the  doctrines 
of  revelation,  as  far  as  the  constitution  of  man  and  the  laws  of 
outward  nature  are  involved  therein. 

As  a  fact,  however,  the  philosophy  prevalent  in  any  age  or 
nation  has  always,  because  of  the  presumption  of  the  human  in- 
tellect, been  allowed  to  intrude  upon  and  pervert  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree  the  cotemporaneous  theology.  Witness  the  influence 
of  Neo  Platonism  upon  the  early  church  ;  the  supreme  reign  of 
the  philosophy  of  Aristotle  over  the  western  church  during  the 
middle  ages;  the  influence  of  the  sensational  philosophy  of  Hobes 
and  Locke  over  the  theological  thinking  of  the  school  of  Priestly 
in  England,  and  of  France  during  the  last  century,  and  of  New 
England  until  to-day  ;  the  influence  of  the  rationalistic  philo- 
sophy of  Leibnitz,  Kant,  etc.,  over  the  theology  of  Germany, 
France  of  the  present  day,  and  the  followers  of  Coleridge  and 


40  THEOLOGY   AND   ITS   SOURCES. 

Carlyle  down  to  the  Parker  and  Emerson  school  in  America. — See 
Pearson  on  Infidehty,  part  ii.,  chap.  2. 

5.  What  is  the  true  sou7xe  of  an  authoritative  theology  ?  and 
tvhat  are  the  three  great  parties  which  stand  opposed  to  one  an- 
othcr^n  this  subject  ? 

I.  The  RationaHsts,  who  are  of  different  schools,  (see  below, 
question  8),  yet  unite  in  the  common  principle  of  exalting 
human  reason  as  either  the  sole  and  sufficient  source,  or  at  least 
the  measure  and  judge  of  all  possible  knowledge  of  God  on  the 
part  of  man. 

II.  The  Eomanists,  who,  denying  that  knovdfid^e  ia-ij^cfissary 
to  genuine  faith,  or  that  faith  isTounded  in  any  sense  upon  reason, 
maintain  that  the  authority  of  the  church  as_an  infallible  teacher 
is  the  ultimate  fouiidation  of  all'confidence,  and  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  ecclesiastical  tradition  as  ascertained  and  inter- 
preted by  the  church,  are  the  sole  soiu'ccs  of  theological  knowl- 
edge^—See  below,  chap.  vi.  and  chap  xxvii.,  question  6. 

'Ill,  Protestants  occupy  an  intermedialiLJJOsition  between 
the  two  extremes  just  stated.  These  hold  (1.)  That  reason 
is  an  original  revelation  of  God  to  man,  and  therefore  no  subse- 
quent supernatural  revelation  can  be  given  to  man,  which  is  not, 
a,  addressed  to  |[s  as  rational  beings,  and  through  the  channel  of 
our  reasons,  and  h,  consistent  with  the  clear  and  certain  deduc- 
tions of  reason  acting  legitimately  within  her  own  sphere.  (2.) 
As  reason  has,  by  all  experience,  been  proved  insufficient  to  guide 
man  in  religious  knowledge,  and  as  God  has  been  pleased  to  put 
into  our  hands  an  infallible  record  of  a  supernatural  and  all-suffi- 
cient revelation  of  himself,  therefore  the  ultimate  gi-ound  of  our 
confidence,  and  source  of  all  our  theological  knowledge,  isjolely 
thejwgxiiof  God  signified  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  (3.)  Never- 
theless, as  revelation  is  addressed  to  our  reason,  (By  reason  includ- 
ing heart  and  conscience  with  the  understanding),  therefore  its 
evidences  are  to  be  authenticated  to  reason,  and  the  words  of  the 
record  interpreted  by  reason  according  to  her  own  laws. 

6,  Hoio  can  the  position  of  the  liomish  Chcrch  on  this  subject 
be  disproved  ? 

The  Romish  position  with  regard  to  ecclesiastical  tradition 


EATIONALISM.  41 

and  the  authority  of  the  church  as  an  inspired  teacher  are  shown 
to  be  ftilse  in  the  chapter  on  "  The  Scriptures  the  only  Eule  of 
Faith  and  Judge  of  Controversies." 

I  would  say  here  in  addition  that  the  Komanist,  in  advocating 
his  system  of  implicit  ftiith,  has  to  reason  in  order  to  prove  that 
reason  is  a  false  guide.     The  Protestant,  on  the  other  hand,  rea- 
sons in  order  to  prove  that  reason  in  itself  is  insuflBcient,  but  that  ■ 
in  her  last  result  she  leads  to  a  revelation  that  reaches  beyond,  I 
though  it  can  not  contradict  her.  —J 

7.  What  are  the  different  senses  in  which  the  term  reason  is 
used  ? 

Sometimes  the  term  reason  is  used  as  equivalent  to  the  mere 
understanding  as  distinct  from  the  higher  moral  and  intuitive 
faculties  of  the  soul.  Sometimes  it  is  used  with  exclusive  refer- 
ence to  the  a  prio7'i  exercises  of  reason,  in  exclusion  of  all  the 
materials  of  experience  and  history. 

In  this  connection  we,  on  the  other  hand,  use  the  word  reason 
to  include  the  whole  of  man's  faculty  of  knowing  the  trutli  as  it 
exists  at  present  in  his  fallen  condition,  informed  by  all  the  lights 
of  his  moral,  emotional  and  spiritual  nature,  by  liis  personal  ex- 
perience, and  by  all  the  natural  light  of  the  world  without,  as  the 
works  of  God  and  the  history  of  mankind. 

~^ 

8.  What  are  the  different  positions  held  hy  the  several  classes 
of  Rcdionalists .? 

The  term  Rationalist  and  Rationalistic  have  been  used  in  dif- 
ferent schools  in  very  different  senses.  In  general,  however,  it 
may  be  said,  1st,  that  in  philosophy  that  system  is  rationalistic 
which,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  starts  from  d  priori  princii)les 
constitutional  to  the  human  mind,  and  interprets  all  cxi)crience 
and  history,  excej)t  in  those  extreme  systems  where  the  validity 
of  experience  and  history  is  altogether  denied,  in  subordination  to 
these  principles.  Thus,  every  philosophical  system  may  be  said 
in  some  sense  to  be  rationalistic  which  does  not  draw  all  knowl- 
edge from  the  bodily  senses.  But,  2d,  in  Christian  theology  tliat 
system  is  properly  called  rationalistic  which  cither  rejects  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  supernatural  revelation  altogether,  or  which  inter- 
prets the  records  of  that  revelation  in  subordination  to  the  pre- 


42  THEOLOGY   AND   ITS   SOURCES. 

viously  settled  conclusions  of  the  human  intellect,  or  the  intuitive 
sentiments  of  the  human  heart.  Thus,  when  any  philosophy 
whatsoever  is  allowed  to  modify  the  interjjretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures by  its  own  independent  principles,  the  result  is  a  rational- 
istic system,  whether  the  philosophy  so  modifying  them  is  itself 
rationalistic  or  eminently  the  reverse.  For  instance,  1st.  The 
rationalism  of  Priestly  and  the  old  school  of  English  and  American 
Unitarians  sprang  from  interpreting  the  Scriptures  under  the  rule 
of  tlie  lowest  sensational  and  materialistic  philosophy.  2d.  The 
rationalism  of  the  modern  Germans  and  their  disciples  in  England 
and  America  springs  from  subjecting  all  revelation  to  the  supreme 
rule  of  the  a^iriori  principles  of  reason.  3d.  The  rationalism  of 
the  new  school  of  Newman  and  Parker,  self-styled  "  spiritual,"  has 
its  source  in  elevating  the  natural,  moral  intuitions  and  feelings 
common  to  all  men  to  the  seat  of  supreme  judge. 

It  will  serve  a  good  purpose  to  group  the  different  classes  of 
rationalists  thus. 

I.  Those  who  deny  the  possibility  and  necessity  of  a  super- 
natural revelation  at  all. 

(1.)  The  Pantheists  of  all  schools.  They  maintain  that  since 
God  is  equally  in  all  things  and  in  all  events,  all  j)henomena  are 
consequently  equally  modifications,  and  therefore  equally  revela- 
tions of  him.  There  is  a  higher,  though  not  more  real  sense,  in 
which  God  reveals  himself  in  man,  and  most  conspicuously  in 
heroic  men,  so  that  in  a  rising  scale  of  revelation,  God  is  in  the 
same  sense,  though  in  difierent  degrees,  revealed  in  Plato,  Moses, 
Paul,  and  Jesus  Christ. 

(2.)  Others,  as  F.  W.  Newman,  Theodore  Parker,  etc.,  and  in 
tendency  certainly  Mr.  Morell,  in  his  "  Philosoj)hy  of  Keligion," 
maintain  that  from  the  very  nature  of  religion  the  object,  and 
from  the  constitution  of  man  the  subject,  of  divine  knowledge,  no 
religious  revelation  is  possible  to  man,  except  through  the  exer- 
cise of  his  natural  faculty  of  spiritual  intuition.  Newman  and 
Parker  maintain  that  this  intuition  is  sufiicient  for  man  in  its 
normal  state,  and  that  there  is  therefore  an  element  of  permanent 
and  universal  truth  common  to  Christianity  and  all  other  relig- 
ions, while  the  special  history  and  doctrines  of  all  of  them  are  the 
mere  outward  symbols  which  thinkers  of  the  nineteenth  century 
have  outjrroAvn.     Morell,  on  the  other  hand,  admits  that  in  the 


SUPERNATURAL   REVELATION  POSSIBLE.  43 

case  of  tlie  writers  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  this  natural  faculty 
of  spiritual  intuition  was  exalted  in  a  manner  very  much  the  same 
as  that  which  we  understand  by  spiritual  illumination,  which  ac- 
companies every  case  of  genuine  Christian  sanctification  ;  thus 
the  apostles  were  inspired  only  in  so  far  as  they  were  preeminently 
holy  and  profoundly  experienced  in  divine  things. 

(3.)  Others  hold,  like  tlie  old  Deists,  that  no  revelation  has 
been  given,  because  none  was  needed.  Stealing  their  conceptions 
of  God  from  revelation,  they  argue  from  the  sufficiency  of  the 
knowledge  which  natural  theology  presents  that  no  supernatural 
revelation  is  necessary. 

II.  There  remains  another  large  class  of  rationalists,  distin- 
guished among  themselves  however  by  many  special  triats,  and 
carrying  their  principles  to  very  various  degrees,  who,  while  ad- 
mitting the  fact  of  a  divine  revelation,  assert  the  right  of  reason 
to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  truth,  and  to  discriminate  in  the 
record  the  true  from  the  false.  Thus,  (1.)  different  inspired  books 
have  been  rejected  on  internal  evidence.  (2.)  The  supernatural 
element  has  been  declared  irrational.  The  old  school  rationalists 
denied  that  this  element  was  in  the  Scriptures,  and  try  by  des- 
perate feats  of  exegesis  to  prove  it  not  there.  The  result  of  that 
controversy  has  anihilated  that  school  of  rationalists  for  ever. 
The  new  school  admit  that  there  is  a  supernatural  element  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  so  for  forth  the  Scriptures  are  not  joure, 
rational  truth,  and  arc  to  be  improved  upon.  (3.)  The  distin- 
guishing doctrines  of  the  gospel  have  either  been  rejected  or  radi- 
cally perverted,  because  regarded  in  their  genuine  form  inconsist- 
ent with  man's  innate,  moral  sentiments. — See  Mansel's  Lectures 
of  Eeligious  Thought,  Lecture  1,  and  Pearson  on  Infidelity,  Part  [ 
L,  chaj).  iii.  and  iv.  1 

9.  Hoio  may  it  he  slioivn  that  a  supernatural  revelation  is     yj 
possible  ? 

The  natural  sources  through  which  men  derive  whatever 
knowledge  they  may  attain  to  by  nature  are,  Ist,  Their  bodily 
senses  ;  2d,  Their  inward  consciousness  informing  thcni  through 
the  laws  of  their  own  mental,  mord,  and  emotional  constitution. 
3d.  By  reflection  and  imagination  these  materials  of  knowledge 
are  Avith  infinite  variety  reaiTauged  in  new  relations,  and  new 


44  THEOLOGY  AND   ITS  SOURCES. 

consequences  are  logically  deduced  from  them.  4  th.  The  experi- 
ence and  the  results  of  the  reflection  of  other  men,  conveyed  to 
them  through  language. 

Now  it  appears  self-evident  that  the  God  who  made  man  may 
at  any  time  convey  to  men  any  new  knowledge  their  faculties  are 
capable  of  receiving. 

I.  Even  new  simple  ideas  may  be  excited' within  his  mind  by 
means  of  a  supernatural  spiritual  illumination  and  inward  expe- 
rience. God  does  act  upon  the  finite  soul,  though  we  can  not 
understand  how  he  acts  ;  and  yet  we  can  understand  that  if  such 
an  experience  be  excited  in  the  mind,  the  man  would  have  the 
same  knowledge  of  the  matter  of  this  new  experience  that  he  has 
of  the  matter  of  his  perceptions  through  his  bodily  senses. 

II.  It  is  clear  that  God  may  convey  by  means  of  visions,  lan- 
guage or  otherwise  any  information  not  involving  new  elementary 
ideas,  just  as  any  man  may,  by  means  of  signs,  convey  any  such 
information  that  he  is  possessed  of  to  the  mind  of  another. 

Many  modern  rationalists  make  a  very  senseless  objection  to 
the  possibility  of  what  they  call  a  "book  revelation."  They  ar- 
gue that  a  book  is  composed  of  words,  and  that  words  are  mere 
arbitrary  signs  which  have  j)Ower  to  excite  only  those  ideas  which 
are  already  in  the  mind  ;  and  therefore  if  Paul,  by  a  divine  influ- 
ence, had  been  elevated  to  the  intuition  of  a  new  spiritual  truth, 
he  could  not  by  words  communicate  those  spiritual  truths  to  any 
who  have  not  already  the  same  ideas  latent  in  their  minds.  In 
answer  to  this,  we  admit  that  simple  or  elementary  ideas  can  not 
be  first  taught  by  words.  No  man  can  know  color  without  an 
eye,  or  moral  right  without  a  moral  sense. — (See  Lock's  Essay, 
Book  IV.,  chap,  xviii,  sect.  3.)  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  too 
plain  to  be  denied. 

I.  That  the  revelations  of  the  Bible  consist  principally  of  facts, 
promises,  commands,  and  threatenings,  and  that  the  reception  of 
no  new  elementary  ideas,  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word,  is  in- 
volved in  Christian  faith.  The  primary  ideas  of  the  soul,  intellec- 
tual and  moral,  are  involved  in  this  revelation,  and  gloriously  ex- 
alted in  new  combinations  and  relations. — See  Alexander's  Moral 
Science,  chaps,  ii.  and  xii. 

II.  That  God  can  convey  to  man,  by  means  of  language,  in- 
formation Avith  regard  to  himself  and  his  purposes,  not  invohnng 


SUPEKNATURAL   REVELATION   NECESSARY.  45 

new  elementary  ideas,  just  as  clearly  and  as  certainly  as  one  man 
can  convey  any  new  information  to  any  other. 

III.  The  Scriptures  themselves  teach  that  the  spiritual  beauty 
and  power  of  the  revelation  they  convey  can  be  discerned  only  by 
means  of  a  supei'natural  spiritual  illumination  and  inward  practi- 
cal experience.  The  work  of  the  Sjjirit  accompanying  the  word 
completes  the  revelation  ;  and  although  the  Spirit  thus  dispensed 
communicates  no  new  truth,  but  only  leads  the  heart  and  con- 
science to  the  experience  of  the  full  spiritual  idea  conveyed  by  the 
word,  yet  there  is  a  true  sense  in  which  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  \ 
only  to  those  who  have  the  Spirit.  sj 

10.  Hoiu  may  it  be  sliown  that  a  supernatural  revelation  is  ^ 
necessary  for  man  ?  \ 

I.  From  reason  itself  ;  for,  although  in  man's  original  con- 
dition reason  doubtless  was  a  sufficient  guide,  yet  reason  itself 
teaches  us  (1.)  that  man's  intellectual  and  moral  nature  is  disor- 
dered and  not  capable  of  perfectly"fullilling  itsoriginal  functions. 
(2.)  That  man's  relations__to_God_are  complicated  by  guilt  and 
alienation,  and  that  the  light  of  nature  discovers  nqrcmed^fbr 
men  in  this  state. 

11.  The  human  heart  universal  craves  such  revelation  from 
God,  and  has  always  manifested  its  readiness  to  receive  even 
counterfeits  of  one  in  the  absence  of  the  true. 

III.  Hf-fl,snn  hn.R  npvpr,  in  the  entire  course  of  human  history, 
availed  to  afford  man  religious  comfort  and  pj^-tm'nf,v  and  to  lead 


liim  in  the  way  of  moral  rectitude. — 1  Cor.  i.,  20,  21.  Bevela- 
jionhas.  Both  have  been  tried  upon  a  wide  scale,  the  one  has 
proved  sufficient,  the  other  has  failed. 

IV.  The  liighest  prophets  ofjroason  are  not  agreed  among 
itl^^msclves  ;  no  two  prominent  rationalists  agree  as  Tolvhat  the 
all  sufficient  and  universal  religious  teaching  of  reason  is.  Their 
mutual  inconsistency  demonstrates  the  worthlessness  of  their  com- 
mon principle. 

11.  What  is  the  distinction  between  reason  and  faith,  and 
what  in  the  legitimate  use  of  reason  in  the  sjjhere  of  religion  .? 

The  general  dejfinition  of  faith  is,  "assent  to  the  truth  upon      i/ 
the  exhibition  of  its  appropriate  evidence*,"  (see  Chapter  on  Faith.) 


46  THEOLOGY   AND   ITS   SOURCES. 

This  assent  in  many  of  its  modes  is  an  act  of  the  understanding 
alone,  and  in  all  cases  it  involves  the  action  of  the  understanding, 
working  concurrently  with  the  will  (or  heart).  But  when  we 
contrast  faith  and  reason  as  mutually  exclusive,  then  we  define 
reason  to  he  man's  natural  faculty  of  reaching  the  truth,  includ- 
ing his  understanding,  heart,  conscience,  and  experience,  acting 
under  natural  circumstances,  and  without  any  supernatural  as- 
sistance. And  we  define  faith,  on  the  other  hand,  to  he  the  assent 
of  the  mind  to  truth,  ujjon  the  testimony  of  God,  conveying  Imoivl- 
edge  to  us  through  supernatural  channels.  As  to  the  authority 
and  legitimate  use  of  reason  in  the  sphere  of  theology,  Protest- 
ants admit, 

I.  That  reason  is  the  original  and  fundamental  revelation  of 
God  to  man. 

II.  Keason  is  therefore  involved  and  presup^DOsed  in  every 
other  revelation  God  will  ever  give  to  man.  The  Scriptures  ad- 
dress us  as  rational  creatures,  and  to  the  irrational  they  are  no 
more  a  revelation  than  light  is  to  the  blind. 

III.  God  can  not  even  be  supposed  to  reveal  any  thing  which 
contradicts  reason,  acting  legitimately  within  her  own  province. 
For  then  (1.)  would  God,  who  speaks  first  in  reason,  contradict 
himself,  and  (2.)  faith  would  be  impossible.  To  believe  is  to  as- 
sent to  a  thing  as  true.  To  see  a  thing  to  be  contrary  to  reason 
is  to  see  it  not  to  be  true.  These  opposite  states  of  mind  can  not 
concur  at  the  same  time. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  Protestants  maintain  that  it  is  essen- 
tial for  us  to  settle  definitely  the  limits  of  the  office  of  reason  with 
regard  to  divine  things. 

I.  It  is  self-evident  that  there  is  a  total  difierence  between  a 
thing  being  above  reason,  and  its  being  clearly  contrary  to  reason, 
acting  legitimately  in  its  own  sphere.  The  ignorant  boor  has  no 
right  to  measure  the  philosopher  by  his  standard  ;  and  much  less, 
of  course,  has  the  philosopher  a  right  to  measure  God  by  his. 
Many  things  are  claimed  to  be  contrary  to  reason  which  only  ap- 
pear to  be  such  because  of  our  ignorance.  "  Humility  becomes 
the  cardinal  virtue,  not  only  of  revelation  but  of  reason." 

II.  Human  reason  utterly  fails  to  grasp  .the  idea  of  the  in- 
finite, or  to  understand  the  relation  of  the  infinite  to  the  finite. 
From  this  universal  incapacity  springs  the  mystery  which  attends 


TRUE   OFFICE   OF   REASON.  47 

SO  many  of  the  revelations  and  providential  dispensations  of  the 
infinite  God.  Hence  the  insolvable  nature  of  such  questions  as 
the  origin  of  evil,  divine  foreknowledge,  foreordination,  and 
concuiTent  providence  with  relation  to  the  free  agency  of  man, 
etc.,  etc, 

III.  Hence  it  follows  that  reason  can  not  he  the  measure  of 
our  faith  ;  we  must  believe,  and  that  rationally,  much  that  we 
can  not  understand.  We  must  use  reason  to  reach  the  knowledge 
of  what  God  means  by  his  words,  and  what  he  would  have  us  be- 
lieve. But  to  understand  the  meaning  of  words  is  one  thing,  and 
to  understand  hoiu  the  thing  we  believe  exists  in  all  of  its  rela- 
tions, is  entirely  a  different  thing.  We  believe  ten  thousand 
things  with  respect  to  the  phenomena  of  our  earthly  life  that  we 
can  not  understand  ;  how  much  more  may  we  do  so  rationally 
with  respect  to  the  information  conveyed  to  us  by  a  supernatural 
revelation  concernin<2;  divine  things. 

IV.  Hence  it  follows  that  reason  can  not  be  the  ultimate 
groimd  of  our  faith  ;  this  rests  only  upon  the  knowledge  and 
truth  of  God,  who  speaks  to  us  in  his  word.  Reason  established 
the  fact  that  God  speaks,  but  when  we  know  what  he  says,  we 
believe  it  because  lie  says  it. 

The  use  of  reason  in  the  sphere  of  theology  is,  1st,  to  exa- 
mine the  authenticating  evidence  of  revelation,  and  to  decide  the 
fact  that  God  is  speaking  therein. 

2d.  To  interpret,  with  the  help  of  every  light  of  the  most  va- 
rious learning,  the  records  of  revelation,  and  to  determine  impar- 
tially what  God  does  say  to  us  therein. 

This  work  of  interpretation  includes  besides  the  grammatical 
rendering  of  every  text  by  itself,  the  careful  comparison  of  Scrip- 
ture with  Scripture,  the  limitation  of  one  class  of  passages  by  an- 
other bearing  upon  the  same  subject,  and  thus  a  development,  by 
an  impartial  induction  from  all  Scripture,  of  the  entire  harmon- 
ious system  of  truth  God  has  therein  revealed. 

3d.  Be  it  remembered  that  reason  can  accomplish  this  much 
successfully  only  as  it  is  informed  by  a  sanctified  heart,  and  guided 
by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

4th.  Reason  can  be  of  further  use  in  this  matter  only  as  the 
servant  and  instrument  of  faith,  in  promulgating,  illustrating,  and 
in  defending  the  truth. 


48  THEOLOGY  AND  ITS  SOURCES. 

12.  Give  a  summary  statement  of  the  different  departments 
of  Christian  theology  ? 

The  three  gi-and  departments  of  Christian  theology  are,  I. 
The  Exegetical,  the  object  of  which  is  to  arrive  at  the  exact  mind 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  interpretation  of  the  text.  This  depart- 
ment includes  as  prejoaratory  the  study  of  the  original  languages, 
the  critical  settlement  of  the  text  in  its  integrity,  also  Biblical 
geography,  antiquities,  and  the  science  of  the  Old  Testament  types 
in  their  relation  to  the  gospel. 

II.  The  Dogmatic,  or  Systematic,  the  object  of  which  is  by 
means  of  a  just  comparison  and  impartial  induction  from  the 
sacred  text  truly  interpreted,  to  present  a  scientific  exhibition  of 
all  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  in  their  essential  relations.  This 
includes  (1.)  Anthropology,  or  the  teaching  of  the  Scripture  con- 
cerning man  and  his  relation  to  God.  (2.)  Theology  proj)er,  or 
the  doctrine  concerning  God  and  his  relation  to  man,  and  (3.) 
Soterology,  or  the  doctrine  of  salvation. 

III.  The  Practical,  the  object  of  which  is  to  deduce  from  the 
doctrines  and  precepts  of  the  Bible  iTiles  for  the  organization  and 
administration  of  the  Christian  Church  in  all  her  functions,  and 
for  the  guidance  of  the  individual  Christian  in  all  the  relations  of 
life. 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE     EVIDENCES     OF     CHRISTIANITY. 

1.  How  may  the  evidences  authenticating  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity be  classified  ? 

They  have  been  most  commonly  classified  as,  1st.  JEIxta^nal, 
i  e.,  Those  evidences  which  accompanied  the  persons  who  acted  as 
the  organs  of  revelation  and  authenticated  their  claims,  e.  g.,  mir- 
acles and  prophecy.  2d.  Internal,  i.  e.,  Those  evidences  which 
are  inherent  in  the  divine  message  and  in  the  inspired  records 
thereof,  such  as  may  be  decided  without  any  reference  to  external 
sources  of  fact  and  testimony,  e.  g.,  the  moral  perfection  of  the 
Christian  system,  the  miraculous  harmony  of  all  the  books,  the 
supernatural  intelligence  they  discover,  the  spiritual  power  of  the 
truth,  etc.,  etc. 

Another  classification,  less  common,  but  more  exact,  may  be 
founded  upon  the  distinction  between  the  different  principles  of 
the  human  soul  to  which  the  several  kinds  of  evidence  are  ad- 
dressed. .  Thus,  1st.  The  rational  evidence,  or  that  which  presents 
itself  to  the  rational  faculties  of  man.  This  class  embraces  the 
evidence  of  history,  miracles,  prophecy,  undesigned  coincidences, 
general  harmony  of  records,  etc.  2d.  The  moral  evidence,  or  that 
which  presents  itself  to  the  judgment  of  the  moral  sense.  3d. 
Spiritual  evidence,  or  that  which  can  be  judged  only  by  the  spirit- 
ual man  as  the  result  of  his  personal  experience  of  the  power  of 
these  truths  when  spiritually  discerned. 

A  third  classification  may  be  presented  thus,  1st.  These  vari- 
ous sources  of  evidence  theoretically  considered,  i.  e.,  treated  by 
the  understanding  as  the  basis  of  a  theoretical  judgment,  2d. 
That  practical  evidence  which  results  from  putting  the  principles 
of  Christianity,  its  precepts  and  promises  to  the  test  of  practical 
experience. 


50  THE   EVIDENCES   OF   CnRISTIANITT. 

Without  following  either  of  these  principles  exclusively,  I 
shall  a,tteni})t  to  establish  the  following  positions  in  the  order. 

1st.  God  and  human  nature,  being  what  they  are  clearly  known 
to  be  in  the  mere  light  of  reason  and  experience,  a  special  revelation 
from  God  to  man  is  antecedently  in  the  highest  sense  probable. 

2d.  The  Old  and  New  Testaments,  whether  the  word  of  God 
or  not,  are,  beyond  question,  both  genuine  and  authentic  his- 
torical records. 

3d.  The  miracles  alleged  in  evidence  of  the  Christian  religion 
are  established  as  facts  by  abundant  testimony,  and  when  ad- 
mitted as  facts  they  invincibly  demonstrate  the  religion  they  ac- 
company to  be  from  God. 

4th.  The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  the  prophesies  contained 
in  the  Scriptures.     The  truth  of  Christianity  is  established  also — 

5th.  By  the  miraculous  harmony  of  all  the  books,  and  by  the 
other  phenomena  of  supernatural  knowledge  which  they  present. 

6th.  By  the  character  of  the  moral  system  they  teach. 

7th.  By  the  character  of  its  Founder. 

8th.  By  the  spiritual  power  of  Christianity,  as  testified  in  the 
religious  experience  of  its  individual  subjects,  and  also  by  its  wider 
influence  over  communities  and  nations  in  successive  generations. 

9th.  By  the  history  of  its  early  successes. 

2.  Hoio  can  it  he  proved  that  a  supernatural  revelation  from 
God  to  man  is  antecedently  probable  ? 

We  have  already  exhibited  the  evidences  derived  from  the 
evident  traces  of  design  in  the  creation,  and  from  the  no  less  evi- 
dent character  of  that  design  in  its  relation  to  sensitive  creatures, 
and  from  the  phenomena  of  conscience,  that  God  is  infinitely  in- 
telligent, benevolent,  and  righteous.  He  not  only  provides  for 
all  the  wants  of  his  creatures  as  they  occur,  but  he  always  adapts 
their  condition  and  circumstances  to  the  nature  with  which  he  has 
endowed  them. 

But  the  preeminent  characteristics  of  man  arc  :  1st.  That 
he  is  a  moral  agent,  and  therefore  needs  a  clearly  revealed  rule  of 
duty.  2d.  That  he  is  essentially  religious.  Universal  history 
proves  the  universality  and  supreme  power  of  this  principle  in  the 
h-uman  heart. 

In  a  state  of  nature  this  craving  after  God  uniformly  reveals 


SCRIPTURES    AUTHENTIC   HISTORY.  51 

man's  moral  and  religious  darkness.  Fear  and  uncertainty  char- 
acterize every  one  of  the  thousand  forms  assumed  by  false  re- 
ligions, and  the  heart  of  man  everywhere  longs  for  light  and  cer- 
tainty.— Acts  xvii.,  23. 

The  intelligence  of  God  leads  us  to  hope  that  he  has  adapted 
the  means  to  the  end,  and  that  he  will  crown  a  religious  nature 
with  a  supernatural  religion. 

The  benevolence  of  God  leads  us  to  hope  that  he  will  relieve 
the  grievous  bewilderment  and  avert  the  danger  of  his  creatures. 

The  righteousness  of  God  leads  us  to  hope  that  he  will  speak 
in  distinct  and  authorative  tones  to  the  conscience. 

Having  already  revealed  himself  in  nature,  though  only  suf- 
ficiently to  stimulate  us  to  uncertain  and  painful  action,  we  may 
surely  hope  that  by  a  second  revelation  he  will  lead  us  to  cer- 
tainty, if  not  to  peace. 

3.  What  tivo  points  arc  involved  in  the  proposition,  that  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  ivhether  the  word  of  God  or  not,  are  yet  2in^ 
questionably  genuine  and  authentic  historical  records  ? 

1st.  That  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  were  written  respec- 
tively by  the  several  writers,  and  in  the  several  ages  which  they 
themselves  set  forth,  and  that  they  have  come  down  to  us  without 
material  change. 

2d.  That  these  writers  were  honest  and  intelligent,  men  who 
proposed  to  themselves  to  write  authentic  history. 

4.  Hoiu  can  it  he  p>roved  that  these  books  loere  ivritten  by  the 
authors,  by  tvhom,  and  at  the  times  in  ivhich  they  respectively 
'profess  to  have  been  written  ? 

The  evidence  establishing  this  fact  in  behalf  of  both  Testa- 
ments is  greater  than  that  establishing  the  genuineness  of  all 
other  ancient  writings  put  together.  This  evidence  is  set  forth  at 
large  under  Chapter  VI.,  on  the  Canon.  They  may  be  summarily 
indicated  thus  : — 

1st.  These  writings  are  in  the  precise  language,  dialect,  and 
general  style  which  are  known  to  be  proper  to  their  professed 
authors  and  age. 

2d.  The  Jews  and  Christians,  who  were  cotemporaries  of  the 
authors  of  these  books,  received  them  as  inspired,  circulated  them 


52  THE   EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITT. 

in  all  synagogues  and  cliiircbes,  transcribed  and  preserved  them 
with  superstitious  care. 

3d,  There  remain  to  this  day,  among  both  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, those  institutions  and  monuments  the  origin  of  which  these 
records  relate  as  part  of  then*  cotemporaneous  history  ;  the  fact 
of  the  institution  verifying,  of  course,  both  the  credibility  of  the 
writings  and  the  cotemporaneousness  of  their  origin  respectively 
with  that  of  the  institutions  they  describe. 

4th,  As  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  Pentateuch  has  been  in 
the  keeping  of  hostile  parties,  Jewish  and  Samaritan,  since  at 
least  six  or  seven  hundred  years  before  Christ.  The  whole  Old 
Testament  has  been  in  the  custody  both  of  Jews  and  Christians 
ever  since  the  birth  of  Christ. 

5th.  The  evidence  borne  by  ancient  versions. 

6th.  The  testimony  of  Josephus  and  the  Christian  Fathers  of 
the  first  three  centuries,  presented  in  their  lists  of  the  sacred  books 
and  numerous  quotations  from  them. 

5.  Hoio  can  it  he  proved  that  these  writings  contain  authentic 
history  .? 

1st.  Leslie,  in  his  "Short  Method  with  the  Deists,"  sets  down 
the  four  following  marks  as  establishing,  when  they  all  meet  to- 
gether, beyond  all  doubt  the  truth  of  any  matter  of  fact. 

(1.)  That  the  matter  of  fact  be  such  that  men's  outward 
senses  may  be  judges  of  it. 

(2.)  That  it  be  done  openly  in  the  face  of  the  world. 

(3.)  That  not  only  public  monuments  be  kept  up  in  memory 
of  it,  but  some  outward  action  be  performed. 

(4.)  That  such  monuments  and  such  actions  be  instituted, 
and  do  commence  from  the  time  that  the  matter  of  fact  was 
done. 

All  of  these  marks  concur  in  establishing  the  truth  of  the 
most  remarkable  i\ict8  related  in  the  inspired  records,  and  conse- 
quently in  confirming  their  truth  as  a  whole.  These  monuments 
and  actions  are  such  as  follows  :  The  weekly  Sabbath,  circum- 
cision, the  passovcr,  the  yearly  feasts,  the  Aaronic  priesthood, 
the  temple  and  its  services,  baptism,  the  Lord's  supper,  and  the 
Christian  ministry.  These  must  date  from  the  facts  they  com- 
memorate, and  prove  that  the  cotemporarics  of  those  facts,  and 


MIRACLES.  53 

every  generation  of  their  descendants  since^  have  believed  the 
history  to  be  authentic. 

2d.  Many  of  the  principal  facts  are  corroborated  by  nearly  co- 
temporary  infidel  writers,  as  Josephus,  Tacitus,  Pliny,  etc. 

3d.  Many  of  the  facts  of  the  gospel  history  are  corroborated 
by,  it  is  said,  as  many  as  fifty  Christian  authors  of  the  first  four 
centuries. — Angus'  Bible  Handbook,  page  85. 

4th.  The  sacred  historians  are  perfectly  accurate  whenever  they 
allude  to  any  facts  of  cotemporaneous  profane  history,  e,  (/.,  Luke 
ii.,  1,  etc. — See  Conybeare  and  Howson's  Life  of  St.  Paul. 

5th.  The  character  of  the  writers.  (1.)  They  were  honest  a 
because  their  doctrine  was  holy — bad  men  never  would  have  taught 
such  a  code,  good  men  would  not  wilfully  deceive  ;  Z>,  because  both 
prophets  and  apostles  sealed  their  testimony  by  their  sufferings 
and  deatli ;  and  c  because  of  their  evident  candor  in  narrating 
many  things  to  theu*  ow^n  disadvantage,  personally,  and  appar- 
ently inimical  to  the  interests  of  their  cause. — See  Paley's  Evi- 
dences, Part  II.  (2.)  TheyAvere  not  fanatics,  because  the  modesty 
and  moderation  of  their  words  and  actions  is  as  manifest  as  their 
zeal. 

6th.  There  exists  the  most  accurate  agreement  between  the 
several  historical  books,  as  to  matters  of  fact,  and  such  subtle  co- 
incidences as  to  details  between  narratives  widely  diifering  in  form 
and  purpose,  that  all  suspicion  of  fraud  is  rendered  impossible. — 
See  Paley's  Horas  Paulinas  and  Blunt's  Undesigned  Coincidences. 
7th.  All  of  their  geographical  and  local  allusions  and  refer- 
ences to  the  customs  of  ancient  nations  are  verified  by  modern  re- 
search. 

6.  What  is  a  miracle,  and  how  are  such  events  designated  in 
Scripture  ? 

A  miracle  is  an  act  of  God,  the  physical  effect  of  which  is  visi- 
ble and  evidently  incapable  of  being  rationally  assigned  to  any 
natural  cause,  designed  as  a  sign  authenticating  the  divine  mis- 
sion of  some  religious  teacher. 

These  are  called,  therefore,  in  the  New  Testament  sometimes, 
^'pya,  iuo7'ks,  John  v.,  36  ;  vii.,  21  ;  sometimes,  orjiielov^  a  sign, 
Mark  xvi.,  20  ;  sometimes,  Swdnetg,  translated  in  our  version, 
wonderful  works,  Matthew  vii.,  22,  and  miglity  ivorks,  Matthew 


1/ 


54  THE    EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

xi.,  20,  aad  miracles^  Acts  ii.,  22  ;  sometimes,  'ripat;^  loonder. 
"  Signs,  wonders,  and  powers,  or  miracles,"  occm*  together.  Acts 
ii.,  22 ;  2  Corinthians  xii.,  12  ;  Hebrews  ii.,  4. 

7.    WJiat  is  Hume's  famous  argument  against  the  credibility 
of  miracles,  and  hoiv  may  that  argument  he  disj^osed  of? 

Hume  argues,  1st,  that  miracles  are  professedly  established  on 
the  evidence  of  human  testimony.  2d.  That  the  power  of  human 
testimony  to  induce  our  faith  arises  from  our  experience  of  the 
truthfulness  of  testimony.  3d.  In  cases  of  conflicting  evidence 
we  must  weigh  the  one  against  the  other  and  decide  for  the 
stronger.  4th.  That  a  miracle  is  a  violation  of  a  law  of  nature. 
But  the  universal  exj)erience  of  ourselves,  and  of  the  whole  human 
family,  prove  that  the  laws  of  nature  are  uniform  without  excep- 
tion. We  have,  then,  universal  experience  against  the  testimony 
of  a  few  men,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  only  a  partial  experience 
that  human  testimony  is  credible,  for  all  testimony  is  not  true. 
No  amount  of  human  testimony,  therefore,  the  credibility  of 
which  is  guaranteed  only  by  a  partial  experience,  can  induce  a 
rational  belief  that  the  laws  of  nature  were  suspended,  because 
their  absolute  uniformity  is  established  by  universal  experience. 

In  answer  we  admit  that  universal  experience  establishes  the 
uniformity  of  a  law  of  nature  as  such.  But  it  is  this  precisely 
that  makes  a  miracle  possible,  otherwise  we  could  not  disciimi- 
nate  between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  A  miracle  is  a 
supernatural  act,  and  universal  experience  testifies  nothing  upon 
the  subject,  further  than  that  nature  being  uniform,  a  supernat- 
ural act  might  be  recognized  as  such,  if  it  occurred.  Negative 
evidence  has  no  force  against  well  established  positive  evidence. 
But  the  fact  that  men  in  China  never  saw  a  miracle  in  six  thou- 
sand years  proves  absolutely  nothing  as  to  whether  men  in  Judea 
did  or  did  not  see  them  on  many  occasions. 

More  men  and  worthier  have  seen  miracles  than  ever  were  in 
a  condition  to  prove  by  testimony  the  descent  of  meteoric  stones. 
Does  water  never  freeze  because  universal  experience  in  Africa 
knows  nothing  of  such  a  phenomenon  ? 

Humci  argued  that  miracles  are  incredible,  that  even  if  they 
occurred  they  could  not  be  established  on  the  evidence  of  human 
testimony,     Stauss,  and  the  German  Pantheists  generally,  main- 


CHARACTERISTICS   OF   NEW   TESTAMENT   MIRACLES.  55 

tain  that  miracles  are  impossible.  They  hold  natm-e  to  be  an 
eternal  and  necessary  development  of  God,  it,  therefore,  can  not 
be  suspended  or  violated.  A  miracle,  therefore,  being  a  suspen- 
sion of  the  laws  of  nature,  is  impossible. 

8.  Hoio  far  do  miracles,  when  the  fact  of  their  occurrence  is 
clearly  established,  avail  to  authenticate  a  divine  revelation  ? 

Some  object  that  miracles  may  be  wrought  by  evil  spirits  in 
support  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  Matthew  xxiv.,  24  ;  2  Thes- 
salonians  ii.,  9  ;  Eevelations  xiii.,  13.  To  this  class  they  refer 
witchcraft,  sorcery,  spirit-rapping,  etc.,  (see  Trench  on  Miracles, 
Preliminary  Essays,  chap,  iii.)  But  surely  the  genuine  miracle, 
being  an  act  of  God,  can  always,  as  every  other  divine  act,  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  works  of  Satan.  The  marks  are,  the  charac- 
ter of  the  person  and  of  the  doctrine  in  authentication  of  which 
the  miracle  is  wrought,  and  the  character  of  the  miracle  itself 
Jesus  constantly  appeals  to  the  miracles  which  he  wrought  as 
conclusive  evidence  as  to  the  divinity  of  his  mission. — John  v., 
36  and  xiv.,  11  ;  Hebrews  ii.,  4. 

9.  In  ivhat  essential  qualities  is  the  unquestionable  genuine- 
ness of  the  Neio  Testament  miracles  made  manifest.  ? 

1st.  The  dignity,  power  and  benevolence  of  the  works  them- 
selves. 

2d.  The  peerless  dignity  and  purity  of  the  men  whose  missions 
they  authenticated. 

3d.  The  purity  and  spiritual  power  of  the  doctrines  they  ac- 
company. 

4th.  Moreover,  God's  revelation  constitutes  one  system,  evolved 
gi-adually  through  seventeen  centuries  from  Moses  to  the  Apostle 
John,  every  step  of  which  mutually  gives  and  receives  authentica- 
tion from  all  that  precedes  and  follows.  Taking  the  two  dispen- 
sations in  their  historical,  typical  and  prophetical  relations,  the 
miracles  performed  in  their  several  ej)ochs  mutually  confirm  one 
another. 

Besides  all  this,  the  gospel  miracles  were  definite,  and  unques- 
tionably supernatural  events,  and  were  easily  seen  and  recognized 
as  such  by  all  intelligent  witnesses  ;  they  were  performed  in  the 
sight  of  multitudes  in  various  places,  and  on  difierent  occasions  ; 


56  EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY. — PROPHECY. 

they  were  accurately  recorded  by  several  witnesses  who,  wliile 
varying  as  to  details,  corroborate  each  other ;  and  they  were  never 
disproved  by  early  enemies,  nor  doubted  by  early  friends. 

10.  What  is  a  jyrophecy,  and  how  does  it  avail  to  authenticate 
a  revelation  claiming  to  he  divine  .^ 

Prophecy  has  been  well  described  as  a  miracle  of  knowledge, 
as  those  works  of  God,  commonly  so  called,  are  miracles  of  jjower. 
A  2)ro2ihecy  is  a  communication  by  God  of  supernatural  knowl- 
edge concerning  the  future,  with  the  design  of  proving  thereby  the 
divine  origin  of  a  message  claiming  to  be  from  God. 

A  miracle  of  power  proves  itself  such  at  once,  and  is  then 
handed  down  to  future  generations  only  by  the  testimonj'^  of  eye- 
witnesses. A  prophecy,  or  miracle  of  knowledge,  proves  itself  to 
be  such  only  subsequently  by  its  fulfillment,  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  has  the  advantage  of  always  remaining  a  monument  of 
its  own  truth,  cotemporaneous  with  every  succeeding  generation. 

Besides  verbal  prophecies,  the  Old  Testament  is  full  of  types, 
or  prophetical  symbols,  which  have  their  exact  fulfillment  in  the 
person  and  works  of  Christ. 

11.  What  are  the  discriminating  marhs  tvhich  must  neces- 
sarily concur  in  any  unquestionably  authentic  proj^hecy  ? 

1st.  It  must  have  been  uttered  as  a  prophecy  from  the  begin- 
ning. A  happy  coincidence  must  not  be  allowed  to  occasion  such 
a  claim  as  an  after-thought, 

2d.  The  prophecy  must  have  a  definite  meaning,  which  is 
brought  to  light  and  put  beyond  question  by  the  fulfillment. 
The  more  definite  the  statement,  and  the  greater  number  of  de- 
tails coiTesponding  between  the  prophecy  and  the  event,  the  more 
conclusive  is  the  evidence, 

3d.  The  prophecy  must  not  be  of  such  a  character  that  it  can 
lead  to  its  own  fulfillment,  by  way  of  suggestion  to  the  human 
agents  engaged  therein. 

4th.  It  must  be  worthy  of  God,  as  to  dignity  and  purity,  both 
in  its  own  character  and  in  the  system  of  faith  and  practice  with 
which  it  is  associated. — Dr.  McGill  in  University  Lectures. 

12.  State  some  of  the  more  remarkable  instances  of  fulfilled 
prophecy. 


CONSTITUTION   OF   SCRIPTURE.  57 

1st,  Old  Testament  prophecies  concerning,  (1.),  the  present 
state  of  the  Jews. — Hosea,  ix.,  17  ;  Jer.  xxiv.,  9,  and  (2.),  Tyre, 
Isa.  chap,  xxiii.  ;  Joel  iii.,  4-6  ;  Ezek.  chaps,  xxvi.-xxviii.  ; 
Amos  i.,  9  and  10 ;  Zech.  ix.,  1-8.  (3.)  Nineveh,  Nahiim^  i.,  8, 
9  ;  ii.,  8-13 ;  iii.,  17-19,  and  Zeph.  ii.,  13-15.  (4.)  Babylon,  Is. 
chaps,  xiii.,  xiv.,  xliv.,  and  xlv.  ;  Jer.  chaps.  1.  and  Ii.  (5.)  The 
Chaldean,  Medeo-Persian,  Grecian  and  Roman  empires,  Dan.  ii., 
31-45  ;  vii.,  17-20,  and  chaps,  viii.  and  ix. 

2d.  The  Old  Testament  predictions  concerning  Christ.  GeQ. 
xlix.,  10 ;  Is.  vii.,  14 ;  ix.,  6  and  7 ;  xi.,  1  and  2  ;  xlii.,  1-A,  and 
chap.  liii. ;  Dan.  ix.,  24-27  ;  Ps.  xvi.,  10  ;  Zech.  xi.,  12, 13  ;  Hag. 
ii.,  6-9 ;  Mai.  iii.,  1  ;  Micah,  v.,  2. 

3d.  The  predictions  uttered  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  (1.) 
The  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Matt.  chap,  xxiv ;  Mark,  chap,  xiii., 
and  Luke,  chap.  xxi.  (2.)  The  anti-Christian  apostacy,  2  Thess. 
ii.,  3-12  ;  1  Tim.  iv.,  1-4. — Homes'  Introduction. 

13.  Shoiv  that  the  relation  ivhich  the  different  books  of  Scrip- 
ture and  their  contents  susiain  to  each  other  prove  them  to  con- 
stitute one  divinely  inspired  whole. 

This  wonderful  constitution  of  the  sacred  volume  is  a  miracle 
of  intelligence,  the  authenticating  evidence  of  which  is,  therefore, 
analogous  to  that  furnished  by  prophecy.  It  consists  of  sixty- 
six  separate  books,  including  every  form  of  composition  on  every 
variety  of  subject,  composed  by  about  forty  different  writers  of 
every  condition  in  life,  from  peasant  to  prince,  writing  at  intervals 
through  seventeen  centuries  of  time,  from  Moses  to  the  death  of 
the  Apostle  John.  These  men  develope  a  revelation  which  is 
constantly  unfolding  itself  through  all  those  years.  The  pre- 
paratory portions  served  a  temporary  purpose  in  the  immediate 
circumstances  under  which  they  were  written,  yet  their  true  sig- 
nificance lay  hid  in  their  typical  and  jirophetical  relation  to  the 
parts  that  were  to  come.  Now  that  we  possess  the  whole,  we  can 
easily  see  that  during  all  those  years  those  various  writers  elabor- 
ated, without  concert,  one  work  ;  each  subordinate  part  finding 
its  highest  reason  in  the  gi*eat  center  and  keystone  of  the  whole, 
the  person  of  Christ.  Each  successive  part  fulfilled  all  that  has 
preceded  it,  and  adjusted  itself  prophetically  to  all  that  came 
after.     The  preparatory  system  as  a  whole  is  fulfilled  in  the  gos- 


r> 


58  EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

pel ;  each  type  in  its  anti-type,  eacli  prophecy  in  its  event.  This 
intelligence  is  the  mind  of  God,  which  is  the  same  through  all 
times,  and  which,  adjusting  all  details,  comprehends  all  in  one 
end. — Dr.  K.  J.  Breckenridge  in  University  Lectures. 

14.  In  what  other  7'espects  do  the  Scriptures  prescjit  the  phe- 
nomena of  a  supernatural  intelligence  ? 

Every  other  ancient  writing,  attempting  to  set  forth  the  origin, 
nature  and  destiny  of  man,  whether  it  be  professedly  divine,  as 
the  Hindoo  Veds,  or  simply  the  record  of  human  speculation,  as 
the  works  of  Aristotle  and  Plato,  betrays  total  ignorance  as  to 
astronomy,  geography,  terrestrial  physics,  and  as  to  the  intellec- 
tual and  spiritual  nature  of  man.  Modern  science  overthrows  the 
claims  of  every  uninspired  ancient  writing  to  authority  on  these 
subjects.     But  observe, 

1st.  The  Scriptures  teach  us  all  we  know  concerning  the  early 
history  of  the  human  race  and  the  colonization  of  the  principal 
divisions  of  the  earth.  The  facts  which  they  reveal  explain  much 
otherwise  dark,  and  they  come  in  contact  with  not  one  Avell  estab- 
lished fact  otherwise  known. — Gen.  chap.  10. 

2d.  This  early  history  gives  us  the  only  known,  and,  in  the 
view  of  reason,  a  transcendently  luminous  explanation,  of  many 
questions  growing  out  of  the  painful  mystery  of  man's  present 
moral  condition  and  relations. 

3d.  These  writings  alone,  of  all  ever  written,  are  entirely  free 
from  all  the  errors  and  prejudices  of  the  age  and  people  from  whom 
they  sprang  ;  and  from  the  earliest  ages  the  results  of  human 
science,  in  its  gradual  advance,  have  without  a  single  exception 
fallen  into  perfect  harmony  with  them,  so  that  the  wiitings  of 
Moses,  sixteen  centuries  b.  c,  stand  fully  abreast  of  the  last  attain- 
ments of  the  human  mind  in  the  ninteenth  century  after  Christ. 

4th.  The  Ten  Commandments,  as  a  generalized  statement  of 
all  human  duties,  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  as  the  highest  lessons 
of  practical  wisdom,  the  Psalms  of  David,  as  utterances  of  the 
most  profound  religious  experiences,  all  have  remained  for  thirty 
centuries  unapproachably  the  best  of  their  kind. 

5th.  No  other  writing  has  exercised  such  power  over  the  human 
conscience,  or  probed  so  deeply  the  human  heart.  This  power  it 
has  tested  upon  the  ignorant  and  the  learned,  the  savage  and  the 


MORAL   EVIDENCE.  59 

refined,  the  virtuous  and  the  vicious,  the  young  and  the  old,  of 
every  generation  and  tribe  of  men.  Yet  these  books  proceeded 
from  the  Jewish  nation,  a  people  rude  and  ignorant,  and  more 
narrow  and  bigoted  than  any  other,  and  from  writers  chiefly  drawn 
from  the  least  educated  classes.  Surely  they  must  have  been 
moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

15,  How  may  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity  he  argued 
from  its  moral  character  ? 

It  is  neither  a  well-founded  nor  a  safe  position  for  the  advo- 
cates of  revelation  to  assume  that  they  are  competent  to  fonn  an 
d  priori  judgment  of  the  kind  of  revelation  that  God  ought  to 
make.  Yet  let  it  be  considered  that,  although  we  cannot  always 
know  what  it  is  wise  for  God  to  do,  nor  see  the  wisdom  of  all  he 
has  done,  yet  we  can  infallibly  discern  in  his  works  the  presence 
of  a  supernatural  intelligence.  Precisely  so  we  cannot  prescribe 
what  it  is  right  for  God  to  do,  nor  always  understand  the  right- 
eousness of  what  he  has  done,  nevertheless  we  can  infallibly  dis- 
cern in  his  word  a  moral  excellence  and  power  altogether  super- 
human. 

The  moral  system  taught  in  the  Bible  is — 

1st.  The  most  perfect  standard  of  righteousness  ever  known 
among  men.  (1.)  It  respects  the  inward  state  of  the  soul.  (2.) 
The  virtues  which  it  inculcates,  although  many  of  them  are  re- 
pugnant to  human  pride,  are,  nevertheless,  more  essentially  excel- 
lent than  those  originally  set  forth  in  any  other  system,  e.  g.,  hu- 
mility, meekness,  long-suffering,  patience,  love  the  fulfilling  of  the 
law,  and  the  intrinsic  hatefulness  and  ill  desert  of  all  sin. 

2d.  This  morality  is  set  forth  as  a  duty  we  owe  to  an  infinite 
God.  His  will  is  the  rule,  his  love  the  motive,  his  glory  the  end 
of  all  duty. 

3d.  It  is  enforced  by  the  highest  possible  motives,  e.  g.,  infi- 
nite happiness  and  honor  as  the  objects  of  God's  approbation,  or 
infinite  misery  and  shame  as  the  objects  of  his  displeasure. 

4th.  This  moral  system  is  perfectly  adapted  to  the  whole  na- 
ture of  man,  physical,  intellectual,  moral,  and  to  all  of  the  multi- 
form relations  which  he  sustains  to  his  fellow-men  and  to  God. 
It  includes  every  principle  and  rules  every  tliought  and  emotion, 
and  provides  for  every  relation.     It  is  never  guilty  of  the  least 


60  EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

solecism.  It  never  falls  below  the  highest  right,  and  yet  never 
generates  enthusiasm  or  fanaticism,  nor  does  it  ever  fail  in  any 
unexpected  development  of  relations  or  circumstances. 

Hence  we  conclude — 

1st.  That  this  system  necessarily  presupposes  upon  the  part 
of  its  constructors  a  supernatural  knowledge  of  man's  natm'e  and 
relations,  and  a  supernatural  capacity  of  adapting  general  princi- 
ples to  the  moral  regulation  of  that  nature  under  all  relations. 

2d.  This  system,  when  compared  with  all  others  known  to 
man,  necessarily  suggests  the  possession  by  its  constructors  of  a 
supernaturally  perfect  ideal  of  moral  excellence. 

3d.  Bad  men  never  could  have  conceived  such  a  system,  nor 
having  conceived  it,  would  they  have  desired,  much  less  died,  to 
to  establish  it.  Good  men  never  could  have  perpetrated  such  a 
fraud  as  the  Bible  is  if  not  true. 

16.  Hoio  is  the  divine  07'igin  of  Christianity  proved  by  the 
character  of  its  Founder  ? 

That  character,  as  it  is  known  to  us,  is  the  resultant  of  the 
biographical  contributions  severally  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and 
John.  They  evidently  write  without  concert,  and  each  with  a 
special  immediate  object.  They,  in  the  most  candid  and  inarti- 
ficial manner,  detail  his  words  and  actions;  they  never  generalize 
or  sketch  his  character  in  abstract  terms,  nor  attempt  to  put 
their  subject,  or  the  word  or  action  related  of  him,  in  an  advan- 
tageous light. 

Yet  this  character  of  Christ  is — 

1st.  Identical,  (see  Paley's  Ev.,  Part  II.,  chap,  iv.,)  i.  e.,  these 
four  different  writers  succeed  in  giving  us  one  perfectly  consistent 
character  in  every  trait  of  thought,  feeling,  word,  and  action. 
They  must  have  drawn  therefore  from  the  life.  Such  a  composi- 
tion by  four  different  hands,  writing  in  their  inartificial,  unsyste- 
matic way,  would  be  the  most  incredible  of  all  miracles. 

2d.  Unique  and  original.  There  have  been  many  other 
redeemers,  prophets,  priests,  and  incarnate  gods  portrayed  in 
mythology  ;  but  this  character  confessedly  stands  without  the 
shadow  of  comi^ctition  in  universal  history  or  fiction.  And  Jews, 
of  all  men,  were  the  authors  of  it. 

3d.  Morally  and  spiritually  perfect,  by  the  confession  of  all 


EXPERIMENTAL   EVIDENCE,  61 

friends  and  foes.  This  perfection  was  not  merely  a  negative  free- 
dom from  taint,  but  the  most  positive  and  active  holiness,  and 
the  miraculous  blending  of  all  virtues,  strength,  and  gentleness, 
dignity  and  lowliness,  unbending  righteousness  and  long-suffering 
patience  and  costliest  grace. 

He  must  then  have  existed  as  he  is  portrayed.  The  concep- 
tion and  execution  of  such  a  character  by  man  would,  as  J.  J. 
Eousseau  confesses,  be  a  greater  miracle  than  its  existence.  If 
he  existed  he  must  have  been  the  divine  being  he  claimed.  A 
miracle  of  intelligence,  he  could  not  have  been  deceived.  A  mir- 
acle of  moral  perfection,  he  could  not  have  been  an  impostor. 

17.  Hoio  is  the  Christicm  7'eligion  proved  to  he  divine  by  the 
spiritual  power  of  its  docti'ines,  and  by  the  experience  of  all  who 
sincerely  put  its  precepts,  provisions,  and  promises  to  the  test  of 
a  practical  trial  ? 

Although  man  can  not  by  his  unassisted  powers  discover  Grod, 
yet  surely  it  belongs  essentially  to  his  spiritual  nature  that  he  can 
recognize  God  when  he  speaks. 

1st.  The  word  of  God  reaches  to  and  proves  its  power  upon 
such  deep  and  various  principles  of  man's  nature  that  even  the 
unregenerate  man  recognizes  its  origin.  It  is  a  "fire  and  a 
hammer  ;"  it  is  a  "  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
heart. — Jer.  xxiii.,  29;  Heb.  iv.,  12.  This  profound  grasp  that  the 
word  takes  of  human  nature  is  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  it  degrades 
human  pride,  forbids  the  gratification  of  lust,  and  imposes  irk- 
some duties  and  restraints  upon  the  will.  The  mass  of  men  are 
held  subject  to  its  power  against  their  luill.  This  is  paralleled 
in  no  other  religion. 

2d.  All  who  faithfully  })ut  this  revelation  to  the  test  of  prac- 
tice finds  it  to  be  true  in  the  deepest  experiences  of  their  souls. 
(1.)  They  experience  as  realities  all  it  sets  forth  as  promises.  It 
does  secure  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  their  communion  with 
God  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Gliost.  "  Doing  his  will  they  know  the 
origin  of  his  doctrines. — John  vii.,  17.  (2.)  They  are  witnesses  to 
others.  Men  are  by  nature  aliens  from  God  and  servants  of  sin. 
This  revelation  pledges  itself  that  it  can  deliver  them,  and  that 
none  other  can.  The  sum  of  all  human  experience  upon  the  point 
is,  that  many  Christians  have  been  made  thereby  new  and  spiri- 


62  EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

tual  men,  and  that  no  other  system  ever  produced  such  an  effect. — 
2  Cor.  iii.,  2,  3.  Dr.K.  J.  Breckenridge's  Univ.  Lecture.  (3.)  This 
revelation  makes  provision  also  for  all  human  wants.  The 
more  a  man  advances  in  religious  experience  the  more  does  he 
find  how  infinitely  adapted  the  grace  of  the  gospel  is  to  all  pos- 
sihle  spiritual  exigencies  and  cajDacities  ;  witness  regeneration, 
justification,  adoption,  sanctification,  the  intercession  of  the  Son, 
the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  the  working  together  of  all  events  in 
the  spheres  of  providence  and  grace  for  our  good,  the  resun-ection 
of  the  hody,  eternal  glory.  And,  as  far  as  our  earthly  life  goes, 
all  these  are  actually  experienced  in  their  truth,  their  fullness,  and 
their  infinite  capability  of  accommodation  to  every  form  of  char- 
acter and  circumstance. 

18.  Hoiu  may  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity  he  proved 
from  its  effects,  as  witnessed  in  the  broad  phenomena  of  commu- 
nities and  nations  ? 

Christianity,  when  entering  very  disproportionately  into  any 
community,  has  often  been  counteracted  by  opposing  influences 
acting  from  without,  and  often  adulterated  by  the  intrusion  of 
foreign  elements  ;  some  philosophical,  as  the  new  Platonism  of 
the  early  church,  and  the  Eationalism  and  Pantheism  of  the  jire- 
sent  day  ;  some  traditional  and  hierarchical,  as  the  Catholicism 
of  the  middle  ages.  Its  sacred  name  has  thus  often  been  sacri- 
legiously ascribed  to  religious  systems  altogether  alien  to  itself. 
Our  argument  however  is — 

1st.  That  whenever  the  Christianity  of  the  Bible  is  allowed 
free  course,  to  that  extent  its  influence  has  been  wholly  bene- 
ficial. 

2d.  That  this  influence  has,  as  an  unquestionable  historical 
fact,  availed  to  raise  every  race  in  the  exact  proportion  of  their 
Christianity  to  an  otherwise  never  attained  level  of  intellectual, 
moral  and  political  advancement.  If  we  compare  ancient  Greece 
and  Eomc  with  England  or  America  ;  modern  Spain,  Italy  and 
Austria  with  Scotland  ;  the  Waldcnscs  with  Rome  of  the  Middle 
Aires  ;  the  Moravians  with  the  Parisians  :  the  Sandwich  Islands 
and  New  Zealand  with  the  gospel,  with  themselves  before  its  ad- 
vent, the  conclusion  is  inevitable. 

1st.  That  Bible  Christianity  alone  furnishes  a  world  embrac- 


EARLY    SUCCESSES.  63 

ing  civirization,  whicli  adapted  to  man  as  man  rc-connccts  in  one 
system  the  scattered  branches  of  the  human  family. 

2d.  That  only  under  its  light  has  ever  been  discovered  among 
men  (1),  a  rational  natural  theology,  or  (2),  a  true  philosophy 
whether  physical  or  psychological. 

3d.  That  under  its  direct  influence,  and  under  its  reign  alone, 
have  (1),  the  masses  of  the  people  been  raised,  and  general  educa- 
tion diffused,  (2),  woman  been  respected  and  elevated  to  her  true 
jDOsition  and  influence,  and  (3),  generally  religious  and  civil 
liberty  realized  upon  a  practical  conservative  basis. 

4th.  That  precisely  in  proportion  to  its  influence  have  the 
morals  of  every  community,  or  generation,  been  more  pure,  and 
the  active  fruits  of  that  holy  love  which  is  the  basis  of  all  moral- 
ity more  abundant ;  as  witness  the  provision  made  for  the  relief 
of  all  suffering,  and  the  elevation  of  all  classes  of  the  degraded. 

Hence  we  conclude,  1st.  No  imposture  could  have  accomi3lished 
such  uniform  good.  2d.  No  system,  merely  human,  could  have 
achieved  results  so  constant,  so  far-reaching  and  profound. 

19.  What  argument  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  may  be 
draivn  from  the  history  of  its  early  successes  ? 

Our  argument  is  that  Christianity  extended  itself  over  the 
Roman  empire,  under  circumstances  and  by  means  unparalleled 
in  the  propagation  of  any  other  religion,  and  such  as  necessitates 
upon  our  part  the  belief  in  the  jircsence  of  a  supernatural  agency. 

The  facts  are,  1st.  Christianity  was  bitterly  repudiated  and 
persecuted  by  the  Jews  among  whom  it  originated,  and  to  whose 
Scriptures  it  appealed.  2d.  Its  first  teachers  were  Jews,  the  most 
universally  abominated  race  in  the  empire,  and  for  the  most  part 
illiterate  men.  3d.  It  appealed  to  multitudes  of  witnesses  for  tlie 
truth  of  many  open  facts,  which  if  untrue  could  easily  have  been 
disproved.  4th.  It  condemned  absolutely  every  other  religion, 
and  refused  to  be  assimilated  to  the  cosmopolitan  religion  of  im- 
perial Eome.  5th.  It  opposed  the  reigning  philosophies.  6th.  It 
humbled  human  pride,  laid  imperative  restraint  upon  the  govern- 
ing passions  of  the  human  heart,  and  taught  prominently  the 
moral  excellence  of  virtues  which  were  despised  as  weaknesses  by 
the  heathen  moralists.  7th.  From  the  first  it  settled  and  fought 
its  way  in  the  greatest  centers  of  the  world's  philosophy  and  re- 


64  EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

finement,  as  Antioch,  Alexandria,  Athens,  Corinth  and  Rome, 
and  here  it  achieved  its  victories  during  the  Augustan  and  imme- 
diately succeeding  age.  8th.  It  was  for  three  hundred  years  sub- 
ject to  a  persecution,  at  the  hands  both  of  the  people  and  the 
government,  universal,  protracted  and  intense.  9th.  It  achieved 
its  success  only  by  means  of  the  instrumentality  of  testimony, 
argument,  example  and  persuasion. 

Nevertheless,  the  "little  flock"  became,  soon  after  the  ascension 
five  thousand,  Acts,  iv.  4,  and  increased  continuously  by  multi- 
tudes. Acts,  V.  14.  The  heathen  wiiters  Tacitus  and  Pliny  tes- 
tify to  the  rapid  progress  of  this  religion  during  the  first,  and 
Justin  Martyi',  Tertullian  and  Origen  during  the  second  and  the 
first  part  of  the  third  century.  So  much  so  that  the  conversion 
of  Constantine  during  the  first  part  of  the  fourth  century  was 
politic,  even  if  it  was  sincere,  as  the  mass  of  the  intelligence, 
worth  and  wealth  of  the  empire  had  passed  over  to  Christianity 
before  him. — Paley's  Ev.,  Part  II.,  chap,  ix.,  sec.  1. 

20.  How  does  Gihhon  atteinpt  to  destroy  the  force  of  this  ar- 
gument in  theffteenth  chapter  of  his  history  ? 

Without  denying  the  presence  of  any  supernatural  element, 
he  covertly  insinuates  that  the  early  successes  of  Christianity  may 
be  adequately  accounted  for  by  five  secondaiy  causes.  1st.  "  The 
inflexible,  or  if  we  may  use  the  expression,  the  intolerant  zeal  of 
the  Christians."  2d.  "  The  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  improved  by 
every  additional  circumstance  which  could  give  weight  and  effici- 
ency to  that  important  truth."  3d,  "  The  miraculous  powers  as- 
cribed to  the  primitive  church."  4th.  "  The  pure  and  austere 
morals  of  the  Christians."  5th.  "  The  union  and  discipline  of 
the  Christian  republic,  which  gradually  formed  an  independent 
state  in  the  midst  of  the  Roman  empire." 

This  is  a  very  superficial  view  of  the  matter.  As  to  the 
"  1st."  pretended  secondary  cause  above  quoted,  it  is  itself  the 
effect  that  needs  to  be  accounted  for.  In  the  face  of  contempt 
and  death  it  did  not  produce  itself. 

As  to  the  "  2d"  cause  cited  we  answer  (1.)  that  this  doctrine 
could  have  produced  no  efiect  until  it  was  believed,  and  the  be- 
lief of  men  in  it  is  the  very  efiect  to  be  accounted  for.     (2.)  The 


EVIDENCE   SUFFICIENT   AND   OBLIGING.  65 

doctrine  of  future  torments  has  not,  in  modern  experience,  been 
found  attractive  to  wicked  men. 

As  to  the  "3d"  cause  we  answer,  (1.)  if  the  miracles  were 
real,  then  Christianity  is  from  Grod.  (3.)  If  false,  they  certainly 
would  rather  have  betrayed  than  advanced  the  imposture. 

As  to  the  "4th"  cause,  the  superior  morality  of  Christians, 
we  admit  the  fact. 

As  to  the  "  5th"  cause,  we  answer  (1.)  that  this  federative 
union  among  Christians  could  not  exist  until  after  the  previous 
universal  extension  of  their  religion.  (2.)  That  it  did  not  exist 
until  the  close  of  the  second  century  ;  and  (3.)  before  Constantine 
it  was  only  the  union  in  danger  of  a  despised  and  persecuted  sect. — 
See  Dr.  M.  D,  Hoge's  University  Lecture. 

21.  Does  the  ivhole  of  the  forecjoing  evidence  in  vindication 
of  Christianity  amount  to  a  denrionstration  ? 

This  evidence,  when  fully  brought  out  and  applied,  has  availed 
in  time  past  to  repel  the  just  force  of  every  infidel  objection,  and 
to  render  invincible  the  faith  of  many  of  the  most  powerful  and 
learnedly  informed  intellects  among  men.  It  is  adapted  to  reach 
and  influence  the  minds  of  all  classes  of  men  ;  it  addresses  itself 
to  every  department  of  human  nature,  to  the  reason,  the  emotions, 
the  conscience,  and  it  justifies  itself  by  experience ;  in  its  full- 
ness it  renders  all  unbelief  sin,  and  sets  intelligent  faith  within 
impregnable  bulwarks.  It  is  not,  however,  of  the  nature  of 
mathematical  demonstration.  The  evidence  being  that  of  testi- 
mony, of  the  moral  power  of  truth,  and  of  the  practical  verifica- 
tion of  experience,  of  course  prejudice,  moral  obliquity,  refusal  to 
apply  the  test  of  experience,  must  all  prevent  the  evidence  from 
producing  conviction.  Faith  must  be  free,  not  mechanically  co- 
erced. Besides,  many  difficulties  and  absolutely  insolvablc  enig- 
mas attend  this  subject,  because  of  the  natural  insurmountable 
limits  of  human  thought.  The  evidences  of  Christianity  thus 
constitute  a  considerable  element  in  man's  present  probation,  and 
a  very  adequate  test  of  moral  character. 

22.  What,  in  fact,  is  the  principal  class  of  evidence  to  lohich 
the  Scriptures  appeal,  and  upon  which  the  faith  of  the  majority 
of  believers  rests  ? 

5 


66  EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

I.  The  moral  evidence  inherent  in  the  truth  and  in  the  person 
of  Jesus, — See  questions  15  and  16. 

II.  The  sanctifying  effect  of  Christianity,  as  exhibited  in  the 
persons  of  Christian  acquaintances. 

III.  The  personal  experience  of  the  spiritual  power  of  Chris- 
tianity.— See  question  17. 

This  kind  of  evidence  stands  first  in  practical  importance,  be- 
cause, 

1st.  The  Scriptures  command  faith  (1.),  as  soon  as  the  Bible 
is  opened  upon  intrinsic  evidence,  (2.)  of  all  men,  without  excep- 
tion, even  the  most  ignorant. 

2d.  The  Scriptures  make  belief  a  moral  duty  and  unbelief  a 
sin,  Mark  xvi.,  14. 

3d.  They  declare  that  unbelief  does  not  arise  from  excusable 
weakness  of  the  reason,  but  from  an  "  evil  heart,"  Hebrews  iii.,  12. 

4th.  A  faith  resting  upon  such  grounds  is  more  certain  and 
stable  than  any  other,  as  the  noble  army  of  martyrs  witness. 

5th.  A  faith  founded  upon  moral  and  sj)iritual  evidence  sur- 
passes all  others  in  its  power  to  purify  the  heart  and  transform 
the  character. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

INSPIRATION. 

The  Christian  religion  having  been  proved  to  be  from  God, 
it  remains  to  inquire  what  is  the  infallible  source  through  which 
we  may  derive  the  knowledge  of  what  Christianity  really  is.  The 
Protestant  answer  to  this  question  is,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  having  been  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  are  the  only  and  all-sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  judge  of 
controversies.  We  will  now  establish  the  first  of  these  propo- 
sitions. 

The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are 
inspired,  and  therefore  infallible, 

1.  What,  in  general  terms,  is  the  nature  of  inspiration  ? 

Inspiration  is  that  dlvijjfiLinfluence  which,  accompanying  the 
sacred  writers  equally  in  all  they  wrote,  secured  the  infallible 
truth  of  their  writings  in  every  part,  both  in  idea  and  expression, 
and  determined  the  selection  and  distribution  of  their  material 
according  to  the  divine  purpose.  The  nature  of  this  influence, 
just  as  the  nature  of  the  divine  operation  upon  the  human  soul 
in  providence,  in  regeneration,  or  in  sanctification,  is  of  course 
entirely  inscrutable.  The  result  of  this  influence,  however,  is  both 
plain  and  certain,  viz.,  to  render  their  writings  an  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice. — See  Dr.  Hodge's  article  on  Inspiration, 
Bib.  Rep.,  October  1857. 

2.  In  what  respects  do  inspiration  and  revelation  differ  ? 

Revelation  properly  signifies  the  supernatural  communication 
of  any  truth  not  before  known.  This  revelation  may  be  made 
either  immediately  to  the  mind  of  the  recipient,  or  mediately 
through  words,  signs,  or  vision,  or  through  the  intervention  of  an 


68  INSPIRATION. 

inspired  prophet.  Inspii-ation^  on  the  other  hand,  signifies  sim- 
ply that  divine  influence  which  renders  a  writer  or  speaker  infal- 
lible in  communicating  truth,  whether  previously  known  or  not. 
Some  men  have  received  revelations  who  were  not  inspired  to 
communicate  them,  e.  g.,  Abraham.  Nearly  all  the  sacred  writers 
were  inspired  to  communicate  with  infallible  accuracy  much  that 
they  knew  by  natural  means,  such  as  historical  facts;  much  that 
they  reached  by  the  natural  use  of  their  faculties,  such  as  logical 
deduction,  and  much  that  was  suggested  by  their  own  natural 
affections. 

Inspiration,  therefore,  while  it  controlled  the  writer,  so  that 
all  he  wrote  was  infallibly  true,  and  to  the  very  purpose  for  which 
God  designed  it,  yet  left  him  free  in  the  exercise  of  his  natural 
faculties,  and  to  the  use  of  materials  drawn  from  different  sources, 
both  natural  and  supernatural.  On  the  other  hand,  revelation 
supernaturally  conveyed  to  the  wi-iter  only  that  knowledge  which, 
being  unknown  to  him,  was  yet  necessary  to  complete  the  design 
of  God  in  his  writing.  This  revelation  was  effected  in  different 
ways,  as  by  mental  suggestion  or  visions,  or  audible  voices,  etc. 
Sometimes  the  revelation  was  made  to  the  writer's  conscious 
intelligence,  and  then  he  was  inspired  to  transmit  an  infallible 
record  of  it.  Sometimes  the  writer  was  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
a  mere  instrument  in  executing  an  infallible  record  of  that  which 
to  himself  conveyed  no  intelligible  sense,  e  .g.,  some  of  the  pro- 
phesies.—1  Pet.  i.,  10-12. 

3.  Hoio  do  inspiration  and  spiritual  illumination  differ  ? 

Spiritual  illumination  is  an  essential  element  in  the  sanctify- 
ing work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  common  to  all  true  Christians.  It 
never  leads  to  the  knowledge  of  new  truth,  but  only  to  the  per- 
sonal discernment  of  the  spiritual  beauty  and  power  of  truth 
already  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 

Inspiration  is  a  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  jjeculiar 
to  the  prophets  and  aj^ostlcs,  and  attending  them  only  in  the 
exercise  of  their  functions  as  accredited  teachers.  Most  of  them 
were  the  subjects  both  of  inspiration  aud  spiritual  illumination. 
Some,  as  Balaam,  being  um-egenerate  were  inspired,  though  des- 
titute of  spiritual  illumination. 


ITS   DEFINITION.  69 

4.  State  what  is  meant  hy  theological  writers  by  the  inspira- 
tion "  of  superintendence"  "  of  elevation,"  "  of  direction,"  and 
"  of  suggestion." 

Certain  writers  on  this  subject,  confounding  the  distinction 
between  inspiration  and  revelation,  and  using  the  former  term  to 
express  the  whole  divine  influence  of  which  the  sacred  writers 
were  the  subjects,  first,  in  knowing  the  truth,  second,  in  writing 
it,  necessarily  distinguish  between  different  degrees  of  inspiration 
in  order  to  accommodate  their  theory  to  the  facts  of  the  case. 
Because,  first,  some  of  the  contents  of  Scripture  evidently  might 
be  known  without  supernatural  aid,  while  much  more  as  evidently 
could  not ;  second,  the  different  writers  exercised  their  natural 
faculties,  and  carried  their  individual  peculiarities  of  thought, 
feeling,  and  manner  into  their  writings. 

By  the  "  inspiration  of  superintendance,"  these  writers  meant 
precisely  what  we  have  above  given  as  the  definition  of  inspira- 
tion. By  the  "  inspiration  of  elevation,"  they  meant  that  divine 
influence  which  exalted  their  natural  faculties  to  a  degree  of 
energy  otherwise  unattainable. 

By  the  "inspiration  of  direction,"  they  meant  that  divine  in- 
fluence which  guided  the  writers  in  the  selection  and  disposition 
of  their  material. 

By  the  "  inspiration  of  suggestion,"  they  meant  that  divine 
influence  which  directly  suggested  to  their  minds  new,  and  other- 
wise unattainable  truth. 

5.  What  objections  may  be  fairly  made  to  these  distinctions  ? 

1st.  These  distinctions  spring  from  a  prior  failure  to  distin- 
guish between  revelation  the  frequent,  and  inspiration  the  con- 
stant phenomenon  presented  by  Scripture  ;  the  one  furnishing  the 
material  when  not  otherwise  attainable,  the  other  guiding  the 
writer  at  every  point,  (1.)  in  securing  the  infallible  truth  of  all  he 
writes  ;  and  (2.)  in  the  selection  and  distribution  of  his  material. 

2d.  It  is  injurious  to  distinguish  between  different  degrees  of 
inspiration,  as  if  the  several  portions  of  the  Scriptures  were  in 
different  degrees  God's  word,  while  in  truth  the  whole  is  equally 
and  absolutely  so. 

G.  What  are  the  different  vieivs  ivhich  have  been  maintained 
as  to  the  extent  of  inspiration  ? 


70  INSPIRATION. 

1st.  Some  infidels,  as  Strauss,  have  maintained  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  merely  a  collection  of  pre-liistorical  myths. 

2d.  Some  Socinians  and  extreme  rationalists,  as  rej)rcsented  by 
Dr.  Priestly,  admit  that  the  sacred  writers  were  honest  men,  and 
competent  witnesses  as  to  the  main  facts  which  they  record,  but,  for 
the  rest,  fa]  lible  men,  as  liable  to  error  in  opinion  and  fact  as  others. 

3d.  Others  have  confined  the  attribute  of  infallibility  to  the 
personal  teachings  of  Christ,  regarding  the  Apostles  as  highly 
competent  though  fallible  reporters. 

4th,  Many,  as  the  Quakers,  and  Dr.  Arnold  of  Kugby,  regard 
the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writers  as  only  a  preeminent  degree 
of  that  spiritual  illumination  which  in  a  less  degree  is  common 
to  all  Christians. 

5th.  Some,  as  Michaelis,  admit  that  the  inspiration  of  the 
sacred  writers  rendered  them  infallible  in  teaching  religious  and 
moral  truth  only,  while,  as  to  external  facts  of  history,  and  opin- 
ions as  to  science  they  were  liable  to  err. 

6th.  Many  transcendental  philosophers  of  the  present  day,  as 
represented  by  Morell  in  his  "  Philosophy  of  Keligion,"  hold  that 
the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writers  was  nothing  more  than  an 
exaltation  of  their  "  intuitional  consciousness,"  /.  e.,  that  this  di- 
vine assistance  took  the  place  in  them  of  great  genius  and  of  great 
goodness,  and  effected  nothing  more  than  the  best  results  of  the 
highest  exercise  of  their  own  faculties.  And  thus  their  writings 
have  no  other  authority  over  us  than  that  which  their  words  sev- 
erally manifest  to  our  consciousness,  as  inherent  in  themselves,  as 
we  see  and  feel  them  to  be  preeminently  wise  and  good. 

7th.  The  true  doctrine  is  that  their  inspiration  was  plenary,  and 
their  writings  in  every  part  infallible  truth. — Bib.  Rep.,  October, 
1857,  Dr.  T.  V,  Moore's  Univ.  Lect.,  and  Gaussen  on  Inspiration. 

7.    What  is  meant  by  ''  j^hnary  inspiration  ?" 

Ajlivine  influence  full  and  suflicient  to  secure  its  end.  The 
cmHnthis  case  securedis  thejerfect  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures 
in  every  part,  as  a  record  of  f;ict_and  doctrine  both  in  tjiought 


and  wills  of  men,  they  are  nevertheless  in  the  strictest  sense  the 
word  of  God. 


^ 


EXTENDS   TO   THE   WOKDS.  71 

8.  On  ivhat  ground  is  it  held  that  the  sacred  writers  were  in- 
spired as  historians  as  well  as  in  their  character  of  religious 
teachers  ? 

1st.  The  two  elements  are  inseparable  in  Scripture.  Keligion 
is  everywhere  based  upon  and  illustrated  by  the  facts  of  history. 
Imperfection  in  one  respect  would  invalidate  the  authority  of  its 
teaching  in  every  department. 

2d.  The  Scriptures  themselves  claim  to  be  the  word  of  God  as 
a  whole  (2  Timothy  iii.,  16),  and  never  hint  at  any  distinction 
as  to  the  different  degrees  of  authority  with  which  their  several 
portions  are  clothed. 

3d.  The  perfect  historical  accuracy  and  agreement  of  so  many 
authors,  of  such  various  ages  and  nations,  which  we  find  in  the 
Scriptures,  itself  demands  the  assignment  of  a  supernatural  cause./ 

9.  On  lohat  grounds  is  it  assumed  that  their  inspiration  ex- 
tended to  their  language  as  well  as  to  their  thoughts  ? 

The  doctrine  is,  that  while  the  sacred  writers  thought  and 
wrote  in  the  free  exercise  of  all  their  powers,  nevertheless  God  ex- 
erted such  a  constant  influence  over  them  that,  1st,  they  were  al- 
ways furnished,  naturally  or  supernaturally,  with  the  material 
necessary  ;  2d,  infallibly  guided  in  its  selection  and  distribution  ; 
and,  3d,  so  directed  that  they  always  wrote  pure  truth  in  infalli- 
hly  correct  language. 

That  this  influence  did  extend  to  the  words  appears,  1st,  from 
the  very  design  of  inspiration,  which  is,  not  to  secure  the  infalli- 
ble correctness  of  the  opinions  of  the  inspired  men  themselves 
(Paul  and  Peter  differed,  Gal.  ii.,  11,  and  sometimes  the  prophet 
knew  not  what  he  wrote),  but  to  secure  an  infallible  record  of  the 
truth.     But  a  record  consists  of  language. 

2d.  Men  think  in  words,  and  the  more  definitely  they  think 
the  more  are  their  thoughts  immediately  associated  with  an  ex- 
actly appropriate  verbal  expression.  Infallibility  of  thought  can 
not  be  secured  or  preserved  independently  of  an  infallible  verbal 
rendering. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  affirm  this  fact,  1  Cor.  ii.,  13  ;  1  Thess. 
ii.,  13. 

4th.  The  New  Testament  writers,   while   quoting  from  the 


72  INSPIRATION. 

Old  Testament  for  purposes  of  argument,  often  base  their  argu- 
ment upon  the  very  words  used,  thus  ascribing  authority  to  the 
word  as  well  as  the  thought. — Matt,  xxii.,  32,  and  Ex.  iii.,  6, 16  ; 
Matt,  xxii.,  45,  and  Psalms  ex.,  1  ;  Gal.  iii.,  16,  and  Gen.  xvii.,  7. 

10.  What  are  the  sources  of  our  knowledge  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  inspired  ? 

The  only  possible  sources  of  information  on  this  subject  are, 
of  course,  the  phenomena  of  the  Scriptures  themselves ;  the  claims 
they  present,  and  their  intrinsic  character  taken  in  connection 
with  the  evidences  by  which  they  are  accredited. 

11.  Hoio  can  the  propriety  of  proving  the  inspiration  of  a 
hook  by  the  assertions  of  its  author  be  vindicated  ? 

1st.  Christ,  the  prophets  and  apostles  claim  to  be  inspired,  and 
that  their  word  should  be  received  as  the  word  of  God.  The  "evi- 
dences" above  detailed  prove  them  to  be  divinely  commissioned 
teachers.  The  denial  of  inspiration  logically  involves  the  rejec- 
tion of  Christianity. 

2d.  The  Bible,  like  every  other  book,  bears  internal  evidence 
of  the  attributes  of  its  author.  The  known  attributes  of  human 
nature  can  not  account  for  the  j)lain  phenomena  of  the  Scriptures. 
A  divine  influence  must  be  inferred  from  the  facts.  If  partially 
divine,  they  must  be  all  whatsoever  they  claim  to  be. 

12.  What  a  priori  argument  in  favor  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures  may  be  d.rawn  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  the 
fact  of  a  divine  revelation  being  presumed  ? 

The  very  office  of  a  supernatural  revelation  is  to  lead  men  to 
an  adequate  and  certain  knowledge  of  God  and  his  will,  other- 
wise unattainable  to  them.  But  an  infallible  record  is  the  only 
channel  through  which  a  certain  knowledge  of  a  divine  revelation, 
made  by  God  to  the  men  of  one  age  and  nation,  can  be  conveyed 
to  men  of  all  ages  and  nations.  Without  inspiration  the  opin- 
ions of  Paul  would  be  of  less  authority  than  the  opinions  of  Lu- 
ther would  be  with  an  inspired  Bible.  And  if  the  record  be  not 
inspired,  the  revelation  as  it  comes  down  to  us  would  not  be  more 
certain  tlian  the  unassisted  conclusions  of  reason. 


PROVED   BY   MIRACLES.  73 

13.  How  may  the  inspiration  of  tJie  apostles  he  fairly  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  they  ivr  ought  miracles  ? 

A  miracle  is  a  divine  sign  (armhov)  accrediting  the  person  to 
whom  the  power  is  delegated  as  a  divinely  commissioned  agent, 
Matt,  xvi.,  1,  4  ;  Acts  xiv.,  3  ;  Heb.  ii.,  4.  This  divine  testimony 
not  only  encom-ages,  but  absolutely  renders  belief  obligatory. 
Where  the  sign  is  God  commands  us  to  believe.  But  he  could 
not  unconditionally  command  us  to  believe  any  other  than  un- 
mixed truth  infallibly  conveyed. 

14.  Hotv  may  it  he  shown  that  the  gift  of  inspiration  was 
promised  to  the  apostles  ? 

Matt.  X.,  19  ;  Luke  xii.,  12  ;  John  xiv.,  26  ;  xv.,  26,  27  ; 
xvi.,  13  ;  Matt,  xxviii.,  19,  20  ;  John  xiii.,  20. 

15.  In  lohat  several  ways  did  they  claim  to  have  possession 
of  the  Spirit  ? 

They  claimed — 

1st.  To  have  the  Spirit  in  fulfillment  of  the  promise  of 
Christ. — Acts  ii.,  33  ;  iv.,  8  ;  xiii.,  2-4 ;  xv.,  28  ;  xxi.,  11  ;  1 
Thes.  i.,  5. 

2d.  To  speak  as  the  prophets  of  God. — 1  Cor.  iv.,  1  ;  ix.,  17; 
2  Cor.  v.,  19  ;  1  Thes.  iv.,  8. 

3d.  To  speak  with  plenary  authority. — 1  Cor.  ii.  13 ;  1  Thes. 
ii.  13  ;  1  John  iv.  6  ;  Gal.  i.,  8,  9  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.,  2,  3,  4.  They 
class  their  writings  on  a  level  with  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures.— 2  Pet.  iii.,  16  ;  1  Thess.  v.,  27  ;  Col.  iv.,  16  ;  Rev.  ii., 
7. — Dr.  Hodge. 

16.  How  loas  their  claim  confirmed  ? 

1st.  By  their  holy,  simple,  temperate  yet  heroic  lives. 

2d.  By  the  holiness  of  the  doctrine  they  taught,  and  its  spiri- 
tual power,  as  attested  by  its  effect  upon  communities  and  indi- 
viduals. 

3d.  By  the  miracles  they  wrought. — Heb.  ii.,  4;  Acts  xiv.,  3; 

Mark  xvi.,  20. 

4th.  All  these  testimonies  are  accredited  to  us  not  only  by 
their  own  writings,  but  also  by  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  early 
(^Miristians,  their  cotemporaries,  and  their  immediate  successors. 


74  INSPIRATION. 

17.  Shoio  that  the  luriters  of  the  Old  Testament  claim  to  he 
inspired  ? 

1st.  Moses  claimed  that  he  wrote  a  part  at  least  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch by  cUvine  command. — Deut.  xxxi.,  19-22  ;  xxxiv.,  10  ; 
Num.  xvi.,  28,  29.     David  claimed  it. — 2  Sam.  xxiii.,  2, 

2d.  As  a  characteristic  fact,  the  Old  Testament  writers  speak 
not  in  their  own  name,  but  preface  their  messages  with,  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,"  "  The  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it,"etc. — 
Jer.  ix.,  12  ;  xiii.,  13  ;  xxx.,  4  ;  Isa.  viii.,  1  ;  xxxiii.,  10  ;  Mic. 
iv.,  4 ;  Amos  iii.,  1 ;  Deut.  xviii.,  21,  22  ;  1  Kings  xxi.,  28  ;  1 
Chron.  xvii.,  3. — Dr.  Hodge. 

18.  Hoio  was  their  claim  confirmed  ? 

1st.  Their  claim  was  confirmed  to  then-  cotemporaries  by  the 
miracles  they  wrought,  by  the  fulfillment  of  many  of  their  pre- 
dictions, (Num.  xvi.,  28,  29),  by  the  holiness  of  their  lives,  the 
moral  and  spiritual  perfection  of  their  doctrine,  and  the  practical 
adaptation  of  the  religious  system  they  revealed  to  the  urgent 
wants  of  men. 

2d.  Their  claim  is  confirmed  to  us  principally,  (1.)  By  the 
remarkable  fulfillment,  in  far  subsequent  ages,  of  many  of  their 
prophesies.  (2.)  By  the  evident  relation  of  the  symbolical  reli- 
gion which  they  promulgated  to  the  facts  and  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, proving  a  divine  preadjustment  of  the  type  to  the  anti- 
type. (3.)  By  the  endorsation  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

19.  What  are  the  formulas  hy  ivhich  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament  are  introduced  into  the  Neiv,  and  hoio  do  these  forms 
of  expression  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  ancient  Scriptures  ? 

"  The  Holy  Ghost  saith,"  Heb.  iii.,  7.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  this 
signifying,"  Heb,  ix.,  8.  "  God  saith,"  xVcts  ii.,  17,  and  Isa.  xliv,, 
3  ;  1  Cor.  ix.,  9,  10,  and  Deut.  xxv.,  4.  "  The  Scriptures  saith," 
Kom.  iv.,  3  ;  Gal.  iv.,  30.  "  It  is  written,"  Luke  xviii.,  31;  xxi., 
22  ;  John  ii.,  17  ;  xx.,  31.  "  The  Lord  by  the  mouth  of  his  ser- 
vant David  says,"  Acts  iv.,  25,  and  Ps.  ii.,  1,  2.  '*  The  Lord 
limiteth  in  David  a  certain  day,  saying,"  Heb.  iv.,  7;  Ps.  xcv.,  7. 
"  David  in  spirit  says,"  Matt,  xxii.,  43,  and  Ps.  ex.,  1. 

Thus  these  Old  Testament  writings  are  what  God  saith,  what 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  75 

God  saith  by  David,  etc.,  and  are  quoted  as  the  authoritative 
basis  for  conclusive  argumentatioUj  therefore  they  must  have  been 
inspired. 

20.  noio  may  the  inspwation  of  the  Old  Testament  writers  he 
proved  by  the  express  declarations  of  the  New  Testament  ? 

Luke  i.,  70  ;  Heb.  i.,  1 ;  2  Tim.  iii.,  16  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  10-12  ;  2 
Pet.  i.,  21. 

21.  What  is  the  argument  on  this  subject  drawn  from  the 
manner  in  lohich  Christ  and  his  apostles  argue  from  the  Old 
Testament  as  of  final  authority  ? 

Christ  constantly  quotes  the  old  Testament,  Matt,  xxi.,  13  ; 
xxii.,  43.  He  declares  that  it  can  not  be  falsified,  John  vii.,  23  ; 
X.,  35  ;  that  the  whole  law  must  be  fulfilled.  Matt,  v.,  18  ;  and 
all  things  also  foretold  concerning  himself  "  in  Moses,  the  prophets, 
and  the  psalms,"  Luke  xxiv.,  44.  The  apostles  habitually  quote 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  same  manner,  "  That  it  might  be  ful- 
filled which  was  written,"  is  with  them  a  characteristic  formula, 
Matt,  i.,  22  ;  ii.,  15,  17,  23  ;  John  xii.,  38 ;  xv.,  25,  etc.  They 
all  appeal  to  the  words  of  Scripture  as  of  final  authority.  This 
certainly  proves  infallibility. 

22.  What  is  the  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  draion 
from  the  diversity  of  style  and  manner  observable  ainong  the  sev- 
eral sacred  loritings,  and  the  ansioer  to  it  ? 

It  is  an  acknowledged  fact  that  all  of  the  national  and  sec- 
tional peculiarities  and  individual  qualities  and  habits  of  each  of 
the  sacred  writers  appear  in  his  work,  because  his  natural  facul- 
ties were  freely  exercised  after  their  kind  in  its  production.  Some 
have  argued  from  this  fact  that  it  is  absurd  to  believe  that  those 
faculties  could  at  the  same  time,  and  with  reference  to  the  same 
object,  have  been  subject  to  any  determinating  divine  influence. 

However  it  may  be  with  the  Arminian,  the  Calvinist  can  find 
no  special  difficulty  here.  We  can  not  understand  how  the  infin- 
ite Spirit  acfs  upon  the  finite  spirit  in  providence  or  in  gi-ace. 
The  case  of  inspiration  is  so  far  forth  precisely  analogous.  God 
works  by  means,  from  the  beginning  pre-adjusting  the  means  to 
the  end,  and  then  concurrently  directing  them  while  they  freely 


76  INSPIRATION. 

act  to  that  end.  God  surely  might  as  easily  guide  the  free  souls 
of  men  in  spontaneously  producing  an  infallible  Scripture,  as  in 
spontaneously  realizing  in  act  the  events  foreordained  in  his  eter- 
nal decree. 

23.  What  is  the  objection  to  this  doctrine  drawn  from  the  free 
manner  in  ivhich  the  New  Testament  writers  quote  those  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  the  answer  to  that  objection  '^ 

In  a  majority  of  instances  the  New  Testament  writers  quote 
those  of  the  Old  Testament  with  perfect  verbal  accuracy.  Some- 
times they  quote  the  Septuagint  version,  w^hen  it  conforms  to  the 
Hebrew  ;  at  others  they  substitute  a  new  version  ;  and  at  other 
times  again  they  adhere  to  the  Septuagint,  when  it  differs  from  the 
Hebrew.  In  a  number  of  instances,  which  however  are  compara- 
tively few,  their  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are  made 
very  freely,  and  in  apparent  accommodation  of  the  literal  sense. 

Rationalistic  interpreters  have  argued  from  this  last  class  of 
quotations  that  it  is  impossible  that  both  the  Old  Testament 
writer  quoted  from,  and  the  New  Testament  writer  quoting  could 
have  been  the  subjects  of  plenary  inspiration,  because,  say  they,  if 
the  ipsissima  verba  were  infallible  in  the  first  instance,  an  infal- 
lible writer  would  have  transferred  them  unchanged.  But  surely 
if  a  human  author  may  quote  himself  freely,  changing  the  expres- 
sion, and  giving  a  new  turn  to  his  thought  in  order  to  adapt  it 
the  more  perspicuously  to  his  present  purpose,  the  Holy  Spirit 
may  take  the  same  liberty  with  his  own.  The  same  Spirit  that 
rendered  the  Old  Testament  writers  infallible  in  writing  only  pure 
truth,  ill  the  very  form  that  suited  his  purpose  then,  has  rendered 
the  New  Testament  writers  infallible  in  so  using  the  old  mate- 
rials, that  while  they  elicit  a  new  sense,  they  teach  only  the  truth, 
tlie  very  truth  moreover  contemplated  in  the  mind  of  God  from 
the  beginning,  and  they  teach  it  with  divine  authority. — See  Fair- 
bairn's  Herm.  Manual,  Part  III  Each  instance  of  such  quota- 
tion should  be  examined  in  detail,  as  Dr.  Fairbairn  has  done. 

24.  Upon  what  principles  are  lue  to  answer  the  objections 
founded  upon  the  alleged  discrepances  bctiveen  the  sacred  writers, 
and  upon  their  alleged  inaccuracies  in  matters  of  science? 

If  cither  of  these  objections  were  founded  on  facts,  it  would 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWEKED.  77 

clearly  disprove  the  doctrine  we  maintain.  That  neither  of  them 
is  founded  on  fact  can  be  shown  only  by  a  detailed  examination 
of  each  instance  alleged.     As  a  general  principle  it  is  evident— 

1st.  With  regard  to  apparent  discrepancies  between  the  sacred 
writers,  that  nothing  presents  any  difficulty  short  of  a  clear  and 
direct  contradiction.  Different  writers  may,  of  course,  with  per- 
fect accuracy  represent  different  details  of  the  same  occurrence,  or 
different  views  of  the  same  fact,  and  different  elements  and  rela- 
tions of  the  same  gi-eat  doctrine,  as  may  best  suit  their  several 
designs.  Instead  of  this  course  j^roving  inconsistency,  it  is  pre- 
cisely God's  plan  for  bringing  the  whole  truth  most  fully  and 
clearly  to  our  knowledge. 

2d.  With  respect  to  apparent  inaccuracies  in  matters  of  science, 
that  the  sacred  writers  having  for  their  design  to  teach  moral  and 
religious  truth,  and  not  physical  science,  use  on  all  such  subjects 
the  common  language  of  their  cotemporaries,  always  speaking  of 
natural  phenomena  as  they  apj)ear,  and  not  as  they  really  are. 
And  yet  revelation  does  not  present  one  single  positive  statement 
which  is  not  consistent  with  all  the  facts  known  to  men,  in  any 
department  of  nature.  In  the  progress  of  science,  human  ignor- 
ance and  premature  generalization  have  constantly  presented  diffi- 
culties in  the  reconciliation  of  the  word  of  Grod  with  man's  theory 
of  his  works.  The  advance  of  perfected  knowledge  has  uniformly 
removed  the  difficulty. 


CHAPTER    V. 

the  rule    of  faith    and   practice. 

The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  hav- 
ing BEEN  given  by  INSPIRATION  OF  GoD,  ARE  THE  ALL-SUFFI- 
CIENT AND  ONLY  RULE    OF    FAITH   AND    PRACTICE,  AND   JUDGE  OF 

CONTROVERSIES.     (Tliis  chapter  is  compiled  from   Dr.  Hodge's 
unpublished  Lectures  on  the  Church.) 

1.  What  is  meant  by  sanjing  that  the  Scriptures  arc  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  'i 

Whatever  God  teaches  or  commands  is  of  sovereign  authority. 
Whatever  conveys  to  us  an  infallible  knowledge  of  his  teachings 
and  commands  is  an  infallible  rule.  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  are  the  only  organs  through  which,  during 
the  present  dispensation,  God  conveys  to  us  a  knowledge  of  his 
will  about  what  we  are  to  believe  concerning  himself,  and  what 
duties  he  requires  of  us. 

2.  What  does  the  Bomish  Church  declare  to  be  the  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  ? 

The  Komish  theory  is  that  the  complete  rule  of  faith  and 
})ractice  consists  of  Scripture  and  tradition,  or  the  oral  teaching 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  handed  down  through  the  church. 
Tradition  they  hold  to  be  necessary,  1st,  to  teach  additional  truth 
not  contained  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and,  2d,  to  interpret  Scripture. 
The  church  being  the  divinely  constituted  depository  and  judge 
of  both  Scripture  and  tradition. — Decrees  of  Council  of  Trent, 
Session  IV,  and  Dens  Theo.,  Tom.  II.,  N.  80  &  81. 

3.  By  ivhat  arguments  do  they  sceJc  to  establish  the  authority 
of  tradition?  BywJMt_criterion  do  they  distinguish  true  tra- 
ditions from  false,  and  on  what  grounds  do  they  base  the  au- 
thority of  tJte  traditions  they  receive  ? 


TKADITION.  79 

Ist,  Their  arguments  in  behalf  of  tradition  are  (1.)  Scripture 
authorizes  it,  2  Thess.  ii.,  xv  ;  iii.,  6.  (2.)  The  early  fathers 
asserted  its  authority  and  founded  their  faith  largely  upon  it. 
(3.)  The  oral  teaching  of  Ckrist  and  his  apostles,  when  clearly 
ascertained,  is  intrinsically  of  equal  authority  with  their  writings. 
The  Scriptures  themselves  are  handed  down  to  us  by  the  evidence 
of  tradition,  and  the  stream  can  not  rise  higher  than  its  source. 
(4.)  The  necessity  of  the  case,  a.  Scripture  is  obscure,  needs 
tradition  as  its  interpreter,  h,  Scripture  is  incomplete  as  a  rule 
of  faith  and  practice  ;  since  there  are  many  doctrines  and  institu- 
tions, universally  recognized,  which  are  founded  only  upon  tra- 
dition as  a  supplement  to  Scripture.  (5.)  Analogy.  Every  state 
recognizes  both  written  and  unwritten,  common  and  statute  law. 

2d.  The  criterion  by  which  they  distinguish  between  true  and 
false  traditions  is  Catholic  consent.  The  Anglican  ritualists  con- 
fine the  application  of  the  rule  to  the  first  three  or  four  centuries. 
The  Komanists  recognize  that  as  an  authoritative  consent  which 
is  constitutionally  expressed  by  the  bishops  in  general  council, 
or  by  the  Pope  ex-cathedra,  in  any  age  of  the  church  whatever. 

3d.  They  defend  the  traditions  which  they  hold  to  be  true. 
(1.)  On  the  ground  of  historical  testimony,  tracing  them  up  to 
the  apostles  as  their  source.  (2.)  The  authority  of  the  Church 
expressed  by  Catholic  consent. 

4.  By  what  ai'guments  may  the  invalidity  of  all  ecclesiastical 
tradition,  as  a  part  of  our  ride  of  faith  and  practice,  he  shozvn  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  do  7iot,  as  claimed,  ascribe  authority  to  oral 
tradition.  Tradition,  as  intended  by  Paul  in  the  passage  cited, 
(2  Thess.  ii.,  15,  and  iii.,  6,)  signifies  all  his  instructions,  oral  and 
written,  communicated  to  those  very  people  themselves,  not  handed 
down.  On  the  other  hand,  Christ  rebuked  this  doctrine  of  the 
Komanists  in  their  predecessors,  the  Pharisees,  Matt,  xv.,  3,  6  ; 
Mark  vii.,  7. 

2d.  It  is  improbable  a  priori  that  God  would  supplement 
Scripture  with  tradition  as  part  of  our  rule  of  faith.  (1.)  Be- 
cause Scripture,  as  will  be  shown  below  (questions  7-14),  is  certain, 
definite,  complete,  and  perspicuous.  (2.)  Because  tradition,  from 
its  very  nature,  is  indeterminate,  and  liable  to  become  adulterated 
with  every  form  of  eiTor.      Besides,  as  will  be  shown  below 


80  THE   RULE   OF   FAITH   AND   PEACTICE. 

(question  20),  the  authority  of  Scripture  does  not  rest  ultimately 
upon  tradition. 

3d.  The  whole  ground  upon  which  Romanists  base  the  au- 
thority of  their  traditions  (viz.,  history  and  church  authority)  is 
invalid.  (1.)  History  utterly  fails  them.  For  more  than  three 
hundred  years  after  the  apostles  they  have  very  little,  and  that 
contradictory,  evidence  for  any  one  of  their  traditions.  They  are 
thus  forced  to  the  absurd  assumption  that  Avhat  was  taught  in  the 
fourth  century  was  therefore  taught  in  the  third,  and  therefore  in 
the  first.  (2.)  The  church  is  not  infallible,  as  will  be  shown  be- 
low (question  18.) 

4th.  Their  practice  is  inconsistent  with  their  own  principles. 
Many  of  the  earliest  and  best  attested  traditions  they  do  not  re- 
ceive. Many  of  their  pretended  traditions  are  recent  inventions 
unknown  to  the  ancients. 

5th.  Many  of  their  traditions,  such  as  relate  to  the  priesthood, 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  etc.,  are  plainly  in  direct  opposition  to 
Scripture.  Yet  the  infallible  church  affirms  the  infallibility  of 
Scripture.     A  house  divided  against  itself  can  not  stand. 

\^       5.  What  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  sole  and  infallihle  rule  of 
faith  ? 

Plenary  inspiration,  completeness,  perspicuity,  and  acces- 
sibility. 

6.  What  arguments  do  the  Scriptures  themselves  afford  in 
favor  of  the  doctrine  that  they  are  the  only  infallihle  ride  of  faith  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  always  speak  in  the  name  of  God,  and 
command  ftxith  and  obedience. 

2d.  Christ  and  his  apostles  always  refer  to  the  written  Scrip- 
tures, then  existing,  as  authority,  and  to  no  other  rule  of  faith 
whatsoever. — Luke  xvi.,  29 ;  x.,  26  ;  John  v.,  39  ;  Rom.  iv.,  3  ; 
2  Tim.  iii.,  15. 

3d.  The  Bereans  are  commended  for  bringing  all  questions, 
even  apostolic  teaching,  to  this  test. — Acts  xvii.,  11  ;  see  also 
Isa.  viii.,  16. 

4th.  Christ  rebukes  the  Pharisees  for  adding  to  and  pervert- 
ing the  Scriptures. — Matt,  xv.,  7-9  ;  Mark  vii.,  5-8  ;  see  also 
Rev.  xxii.,  18,  19,  and  Deut.  iv.,  2  ;  xii.,  32  ;  Josh,  i.,  7. 


SCRIPTURES   COMPLETE.  81 

7.  In  what  sense  is  the  completeness  of  Scripture  as  a  rule  of 
faith  asserted  ? 

It  is  not  meant  that  the  Scriptures  contain  every  revelation 
which  God  has  ever  made  to  man,  but  that  their  contents  are  the 
only  supernatural  revelation  that  God  does  now  make  to  man, 
and  that  this  revelation  is  abundantly  sufficient  for  man's  guid- 
ance in  all  questions  of  faith,  practice,  and  modes  of  worship,  and 
excludes  the  necessity  and  the  right  of  any  human  inventions, 

8.  How  may  this  completeness  he  proved  from  the  design  of 
Scripture  '^ 

The  Scri]3tures  profess  to  lead  us  to  God.  Whatever  is  neces- 
sary to  that  end  they  must  teach  us.  If  any  supplementary  rule, 
as  tradition  is  necessary  to  that  end,  they  must  refer  us  to  it. 
"  Incompleteness  here  would  be  falsehood."  But  while  one  sacred 
writer  constantly  refers  us  to  the  writings  of  another,  not  one  of 
them  ever  intimates  to  us  either  the  necessity  or  the  existence  of 
any  other  rule. — John  xx.,  31  ;  2  Tim.  iii.,  15-17. 

9.  By  what  other  arguments  may  this  principle  he  proved  ? 

As  the  Scrij)tures  profess  to  be  a  rule  complete  for  its  end,  so 
they  have  always  been  practically  found  to  be  such  by  the  true 
spiritual  people  of  God  in  all  ages.  They  teach  a  complete  and 
harmonious  system  of  doctrine.  They  furnish  all  necessary  prin- 
ciples for  the  government  of  the  private  lives  of  Christians,  in 
every  relation,  for  the  public  worship  of  God,  and  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom  ;  and  they  repell  all  pre- 
tended  traditions  and  priestly  innovations. 

10.  In  ivhat  sense  do  Fi'otestants  affirm  and  Romanists  deny 
the  loerspicuity  of  Scripture  ? 

Protestants  do  not  affirm  that  the  doctrines  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures  are  level  to  man's  powers  of  understanding.  Many  of 
them  are  confessedly  beyond  all  understanding.  Nor  do  they 
affirm  that  every  part  of  Scripture  can  be  certainly  and  perspi- 
cuously expounded,  many  of  the  prophesies  being  perfectly 
enigmatical  until  explained  by  the  event.  But  they  do  affirm 
that  every  essential  article  of  faith  and  rule  of  practice  is  clearly 


S2  THE   RULE   OF   FAITH   AND   PRACTICE. 

revealed  in  Scripture,  or  may  certainly  be  deduced  therefrom.  This 
much  the  least  instructed  Christian  may  learn  at  once;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  true,  tliat  with  the  advance  of  historical  and 
critical  knowledge,  and  by  means  of  controversies,  the  Christian 
church  is  constantly  making  progress  in  the  accurate  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture,  and  in  the  comprehension  in  its  integrity  of  the 
system  therein  taught. 

Protestants  affirm  and  Eomanists  deny  that  private  and  un- 
learned Christians  may  safely  be  allowed  to  interpret  Scripture 
for  themselves. 

11.  Hoio  can  the  perspic2iity  of  Scripture  he  proved  from  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  law  and  a  message  ? 

We  saw  (question  8)  that  Scripture  is  either  complete  or  false, 
from  its  own  professed  design.  "We  now  prove  its  perspicuity 
upon  the  same  principle.  It  professes  to  be  (1.)  a  law  to  be 
obeyed  ;  (2.)  a  revelation  of  truth  to  be  believed,  to  be  received 
by  us  in  both  aspects  upon  the  i:)ena]ty  of  eternal  death.  To 
suppose  it  not  to  be  perspicuous,  relatively  to  its  design  of  com- 
mandins:  and  teachinsr,  is  to  charo;e  God  with  dealing  with  us  in 
a  spirit  at  once  disingenuous  and  cruel. 

12.  In  luhat passages  is  their perspicuitij  asserted? 

Ps.  xix.,  7,  8 ;  cxix.,  105,  130  ;  2  Cor.  iii.,  14  ;  2  Pet.  i.,  18, 
19  ;  Hab.  ii.,  2  ;  2  Tim.  iii.,  15,  17. 

13.  By  lohat  other  arguments  may  this  p>oint  he  established  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  are  addressed  immediately,  either  to  all 
men  promiscuously,  or  else  to  the  whole  body  of  believers  as  such. — 
Deut.  vi.,  4-9  ;  Luke  i.,  3  ;  Kom.  i.,  7  ;  1  Cor.  i.,  2  ;  2  Cor.  i., 
1  ;  iv.,  2  ;  Gal.  i.,  2  ;  Eph.  i.,  1  ;  Phil,  i.,  1  ;  Col.  i.,  2  ;  James 
i.,  1 ;  1  Peter  i.,  1  ;  2  Peter  i.,  1  ;  1  John  ii.,  12, 14  ;  Jude  i.,  1  ; 
Kev.  i.,  3,  4;  ii.,  7.  The  only  exceptions  are  the  epistles  to 
Timothy  and  Titus. 

2d.  All  Christians  promiscuously  are  commanded  to  search 
the  Scriptures. — 2  Tim.  iii.,  15,  17  ;  Acts  xvii.,  11;  Joim  v.,  39. 

3d.  Universal  experience.  We  have  the  same  evidence  of  the 
light-giving  power  of  Scripture  that  we  have  of  the  same  property 


EOMISH   DOCTRINE.  83 

in  the  sun.     The  argument  to  the  contrary  is  an  insult  to  the  un- 
der standincr  of  the  whole  world  of  Bible  readers. 

4th,  The  essential  unity  in  faith  and  practice,  in  spite  of  all 
circumstantial  differences,  of  all  Christian  communities  of  every 
age  and  nation,  who  draw  their  religion  directly  from  the  open 
Scriptures. 

14.  What  was  the  third  quality  required  to  constitute  the 
Scriptures  the  siifficicnt  rule  of  faith  and  pj'actice  ? 

Accessibility.  It  is  self-evident  that  this  is  the  preeminent 
characteristic  of  the  Scriptures,  in  contrast  to  tradition,  which  is 
in  the  custody  of  a  corporation  of  priests,  and  to  every  other  pre- 
tended rule  whatsoever.  The  agency  of  the  church  in  this  mat- 
ter is  simply  to  give  all  currency  to  the  word  of  God. 

15.  What  is  meant  hy  saying  that  the  Scriptures  are  the 
judge  as  well  as  the  rule  in  questions  of  faith  ? 

"  A  rule  is  a  standard  of  judgment ;  a  judge  is  the  expounder 
and  applier  of  that  rule  to  the  decision  of  particular  cases."  The 
Protestant  doctrine  is — 

1st.  That  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice. 

2d.  (1.)  Negatively.  That  there  is  no  body  of  men  who  are 
either  qualified,  or  authorized,  to  interpret  the  Scriptures,  or  to 
apply  their  principles  to  the  decision  of  particular  questions,  in  a 
sense  binding  ujJon  the  faith  of  their  felloiv  Christians.  (2.)  Pos- 
sitively.  That  Scrij)ture  is  the  only  infallible  voice  in  the  church, 
and  is  to  be  interpreted,  in  its  own  light,  and  with  the  graciotis 
help  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  promised  to  every  Christian  (1 
John  ii.,  20-27),  by  each  individual  for  himself,  with  the  assistance, 
though  not  by  the  authority  of  his  fellow  Christians.  Creeds  and 
confessions,  as  to  form,  bind  only  those  who  voluntarily  ])rofes8 
them,  and  as  to  matter,  they  bind  only  so  far  as  they  affirm  truly 
what  the  Bible  teaches,  and  because  the  Bible  does  so  teach. 

16.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  authority  of  the 
church  as  the  infallible  intoprcter  of  the  7'ule  of  faith  and  the  au- 
thoritative judge  of  all  controversies  ? 

The  Romish  doctrine  is  that  the  church  is  absolutely  infalli- 


84  JUDGE  OF   CONTROVERSIES. 

ble  in  <all  matters  of  Christian  faith  and  practice,  and  the  divinely 
authorized  depository  and  interpreter  of  the  rule  of  faith.  Her 
office  is  not  to  convey  new  revelations  from  God  to  man,  yet  her 
inspiration  renders  her  infallible  in  disseminating  and  interpreting 
the  original  revelation  communicated  through  the  apostles. 

The  church,  therefore,  authoritatively  determines,  1st,  What 
is  Scripture  ?  2d.  What  is  genuine  tradition  ?  3d.  Wliat  is  the 
true  sense  of  Scripture  and  tradition,  and  what  is  the  true  appli- 
cation of  that  perfect  rule  to  every  particular  question  of  belief 
or  practice. 

This  authority  vests  in  the  pope,  when  acting  in  his  official 
capacity,  and  in  the  bishops  as  a  body  ;  as  when  assembled  in 
general  council,  or  when  giving  universal  consent  to  a  decree  of 
pope  or  council. — Decrees  of  Council  of  Trent,  Session  lY.,  Deus 
Theo.,  N.  80,  81,  84,  93,  94,  95,  96.  Bellarmine,  Lib.  III.,  de 
eccles.,  cap.  xiv.,  and  Lib.  II.,  de  concil.,  cap.  ii, 

17.  By  toJiat  ai^guments  do  they  seek  to  establish  this  authority  1 

1st.  The  promises  of  Christ,  given,  as  they  claim,  to  the  apos- 
tles, and  to  their  official  successors,  securing  their  infallibility, 
and  consequent  authority. — Matt,  xvi.,  18  ;  xviii.,  18-20  ;  Luke 
xxiv.,  47-49  ;  John  xvi.,  13  ;  xx.,  23. 

2d.  The  commission  given  to  the  church  as  the  teacher  of  the 
world. — Matt,  xxviii.,  19,  20  ;  Luke  x.,  16,  etc. 

3d.  The  church  is  declared  to  be  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth,"  and  it  is  affirmed  that  "  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never 
prevail  against  her." 

4th.  To  the  church  is  granted  power  to  bind  and  loose,  and 
he  that  will  not  hear  the  church  is  to  be  treated  as  a  heathen. — 
Matt,  xvi.,  19  ;  xviii.,  15-18. 

5th.  The  church  is  commanded  to  discriminate  between  truth 
and  error,  and  must  consequently  be  qualified  and  authorized  to 
do  so.— 2  Thes.  iii.,  6  ;  Kom.  xvi.,  17 ;  2  John  10. 

6th.  From  the  necessity  of  the  case,  men  need  and  crave  an 
ever-living,  visible  and  cotemporaneous  infollible  Interpreter  and 
Judge. 

7th.  From  universal  analogy  eveiy  community  among  men 
has  the  living  judge  as  well  as  the  written  law,  and  the  one  would 
be  of  no  value  without  the  other. 


ROMISH   DOCTRINE   REFUTED,  85 

8th.  This  power  is  necessary  to  secure  unity  and  universality, 
which  all  acknowledge  to  be  essential  attributes  of  the  true 
church. 

18.  By  what  ai'guments  may  this  claim  of  the  Romish  church 
he  shoivn  to  he  utterly  haseless  1 

1st.  A  claim  vesting-  in  mortal  men  a  power  so  momentous 
can  be  established  only  by  the  most  clear  and  certain  evidence, 
and  the  failure  to  produce  such  converts  the  claim  into  a  treason 
at  once  against  God  and  the  human  race. 

2d,  Her  evidence  fails,  because  the  promises  of  Christ  to 
preserve  his  church  from  extinction  and  from  error  do  none  of 
them  go  the  length  of  pledging  infallibility.  The  utmost  prom- 
ised is,  that  the  true  people  of  God  shall  never  perish  entirely 
from  the  earth,  or  be  left  to  apostatize  from  the  essentials  of  the 
faith. 

3d,  Her  evideftce  fails,  because  these  promises  of  Christ  were 
addressed  not  to  the  officers  of  the  church  as  such,  but  to  the 
body  of  true  believers.  Compare  John  xx.,  23  with  Luke  xxiv., 
33,  47,  48,  49,  and  1  John  ii.,  20,  27. 

4th,  Her  evidence  fails,  because  the  church  to  which  the  pre- 
cious promises  of  the  Scriptures  are  pledged  is  not  an  external, 
visible  society,  the  authority  of  which  is  vested  in  the  hands  of  a 
perpetual  line  of  apostles.  For  (1.)  the  word  church.  (t«-«:A?;am,) 
is  a  collective  term,  embracing  the  effectually  called  {kXiytol^  or 
regenerated. — Kom.  i.,  7  ;  viii.,  28  ;  1  Cor.,  i.,  2  ;  Jude  i.  ;  Kev. 
xvii.,  14  ;  also  Kom.  ix.,  24  ;  1  Cor.  vii.,  18-24  ;  Gal.  i.,  15  ;  2 
Tim.  i.,  9  ;  Heb.  ix,,  15  ;  1  Pet.  ii.,  9  ;  v.,  10  ;  Eph.  i.,  18  ;  2 
Pet.  i.,  10.  (2.)  The  attributes  ascribed  to  the  church  prove  it 
to  consist  alone  of  the  true,  spiritual  people  of  God  as  such. — 
Eph.  v.,  27  ;  1  Pet.  ii.,  5  ;  John  x,,  27  ;  Col,  i,,  18,  24.  (3.) 
The  epistles  are  addressed  to  the  church,  and  in  their  salutations 
explain  that  phrase  as  equivalent  to  "  the  called,"  "  the  saints," 
"  all  true  worshipers  of  God  ;"  witness  the  salutations  of  1st 
and  2d  Corinthians,  Ephcsians,  Colossians,  1st  and  2d  Peter  and 
Jude.  The  same  attributes  are  ascribed  to  the  members  of  the 
true  church  as  such  throughout  the  body  of  the  Epistles. — 
1  Cor.  i.,  30  ;  iii.,  16  ;  vi.,  11,  19  ;  Eph.  ii.,  3-8,  and  19-22  ; 
1  Thes.  v.,  4,  5 ;  2  Thes,  ii.,  13 ;  Col.  i.,  21 ;  ii.,  10  ;  1  Pet,  ii.,  9. 


86  JUDGE   OF    CONTEOVERSIES. 

5tli.  The  inspired  apostles  have  had  no  successors.  (1.)  There 
is  no  evidence  that  they  had  such  in  the  New  Testament.  (2.) 
While  provision  was  made  for  the  regular  perpetuation  of  the  offices 
of  presbyter  and  deacon,  (1  Tim.  iii.,  1-13,)  there  are  no  directions 
given  for  the  perpetuation  of  the  apostolate.  (3.)  There  is  per- 
fect silence  concerning  the  continued  existence  of  any  apostles  in 
the  church  in  the  writings  of  the  early  centuries.  Both  the  name 
and  the  thing  ceased.  (4.)  None  ever  claiming  to  be  one  of  their 
successors  have  possessed  the  "  signs  of  an  apostle." — 2  Cor.  xii., 
12  ;  1  Cor.  ix.,  1  ;  Gal.  i.,  1,  12  ;  Acts  i.,  21,  22. 

6th.  This  claim,  as  it  rests  upon  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
is  utterly  unscriptural,  because  the  Pope  is  not  known  to  Scrip- 
ture. As  it  rests  upon  the  authority  of  the  whole  body  of  the 
bishops,  expressed  in  their  general  consent,  it  is  unscriptural  for 
the  reasons  above  shown,  and  it  is,  moreover,  impracticable,  since 
their  universal  judgment  never  has  been  and  never  can  be  impar- 
tially collected  and  pronounced. 

7th.  There  can  be  no  infallibility  where  there  is  not  self-con- 
sistency. But  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Papal  church  has  not  been 
self-consistent  in  her  teaching.  (1.)  She  has  taught  different  doc- 
trines in  different  sections  and  ages.  (2.)  She  affirms  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  at  the  same  time  teaches  a  sys- 
tem plainly  and  radically  inconsistent  with  their  manifest  sense  ; 
witness  the  doctrines  of  the  priesthood,  the  Mass,  penance,  of 
works,  and  of  Maiy  worship.  Therefore  the  Church  of  Kome  hides 
the  Scriptures  from  the  people. 

8th.  If  this  Romish  system  be  true  then  genuine  spiritual  re- 
ligion ought  to  flourish  in  her  communion,  and  all  the  rest  of  the 
world  ought  to  be  a  moral  desert.  The  flicts  are  notoriously  the 
reverse.  If,  therefore,  we  admit  that  the  Romish  system  is  true, 
we  subvert  one  of  the  principal  e\'idences  of  Christianity  itself, 
viz.,  the  self-evidencing  light  and  practical  power  of  true  religion, 
and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

19.  By  what  direct  arguments  may  the  doctrine  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  the  final  judge  of  controversies  he  established  ? 

That  all  Christians  are  to  study  the  Scriptures  for  themselves, 
and  that  in  all  questions  as  to  God's  revealed  will  the  appeal  is 
to  the  Scriptures  alone,  is  jiroved  by  the  following  facts  : — 


KOMISH    DOCTRINE    REFUTED.  87 

1st.  Scripture  is  perspicuous,  see  above,  questions  11-13. 

2d.  Scripture  is  addressed  to  all  Cliristians  as  such,  see  above, 
question  13. 

3d.  All  Christians  are  commanded  to  search  the  Scriptures, 
and  by  them  to  judge  all  doctrines  and  all  professed  teachers. — 
John  v.,  39  ;  Acts  xvii.,  11 ;  Gal.  i.,  8  ;  2  Cor.  iv.,  2  ;  1  Thess. 
v.,  21  ;  1  John  iv,,  1,  2. 

4th.  The  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  author  and  inter- 
preter of  Scripture,  is  to  all  Christians  as  such.  Compare  John 
XX.,  23  with  Luke  xxiv.,  47-49  ;  1  John  ii.,  20,  27  ;  Eom.  viii., 
9  ;  1  Cor.  iii.,  16,  17. 

5th.  Religion  is  essentially  a  personal  matter.  Each  Chris- 
tian must  know  and  believe  the  truth  explicitly  for  himself,  on 
the  direct  ground  of  its  own  moral  and  spiritual  evidence,  and  not 
on  the  mere  ground  of  blind  authority.  Otherwise  faith  could 
not  be  a  moral  act,  nor  could  it  "  purify  the  heart."  Faith  derives 
its  sanctifying  power  from  the  truth  which  it  immediately  appre- 
hends on  its  own  expeiimental  evidence. — John  xvii.,  17,  19  ; 
James  i.,  18  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  22. 

20.  Wliat  is  the  objection  wJiich  the  Romanists  make  to  this 
doctrine,  on  the  ground  that  the  church  is  our  only  authority  for 
believing  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  luord  of  God  ? 

Their  objection  is,  that  as  we  receive  the  Scriptures  as  the 
word  of  God  only  on  the  authoritative  testimony  of  the  church, 
our  faith  in  the  Scriptures  is  only  another  form  of  our  faith  in 
the  church,  and  the  authority  of  the  church,  being  the  foundation 
of  that  of  Scripture,  must  of  course  be  held  paramount. 

Tliis  is  absurd,  for  two  reasons — 

1st.  The  assumed  fact  is  false.  The  evidence  upon  which  we 
receive  Scripture  as  the  word  of  God  is  not  the  authority  of  the 
church,  but  (1.)  God  did  speak  by  the  apostles  and  prophets,  as 
is  evident  a  from  the  nature  of  their  doctrine,  b  from  their  mira- 
cles, c  their  prophecies,  d  our  personal  experience  and  observation 
of  the  power  of  the  truth.  (2.)  These  very  wiitings  which  we 
possess  were  written  by  the  apostles,  etc.,  as  is  evident,  a  from 
internal  evidence,  b  from  historical  testimony  rendered  by  all 
competent  cotemporaneous  witnesses  in  the  church  or  out  of  it. 

2d.  Even  if  the  fact  assumed  was  true,  viz.,  that  we  know  the 


88  JUDGE   OF   CONTKOVERSIES. 

Scriptures  to  be  from  God,  on  the  authority  of  the  church's  tes- 
timony alone,  the  conclusion  they  seek  to  deduce  from  it  would 
be  absurd.  The  witness  who  proves  the  identity  or  primogeni- 
ture of  a  prince  does  not  thereby  acquire  a  right  to  govern  the 
kingdom,  or  even  to  interpret  the  will  of  the  prince. 

21.  Hoio  is  the  argument  for  the  necessity  of  a  visible  judge, 
derived  from  the  diversities  of  sects  and  doctrines  among  Pro- 
testants, to  he  answered  / 

1st.  We  do  not  pretend  that  the  private  judgment  of  Pro- 
testants is  infallible,  but  only  that  when  exercised  in  an  humble, 
believing  spirit,  it  always  leads  to  a  comjietent  knowledge  of 
essential  truth. 

2d.  The  term  Protestant  is  simply  negative,  and  is  assumed 
by  many  infidels  who  protest  as  much  against  the  Scriptures  as 
they  do  against  Kome.  But  Bible  Protestants,  among  all  their 
circumstantial  differences,  are,  to  a  wonderful  degree,  agreed  upon 
the  essentials  of  faith  and  practice.  Witness  their  hymns  and 
devotional  literature. 

3d.  The  diversity  that  does  actually  exist  arises  from  failm'e 
in  applying  faithfully  the  Protes-tant  principles  for  which  we 
contend.  Men  do  not  simply  and  without  prejudice  take  their 
creed  from  the  Bible. 

4th.  The  Catholic  church,  in  her  last  and  most  authoritative 
utterance  through  the  Council  of  Trent,  has  proved  herself  a  most 
indefinite  judge.  Her  doctrinal  decisions  need  an  infallible  inter- 
preter infinitely  more  than  the  Scriptures. 

22.  How  may  it  he  shoiun  that  the  Romanist  theory,  as  loell 
as  the  Protestant,  necessarily  throws  upon  the  jpeople  the  obliga- 
tion of  private  judgment  ? 

Is  there  a  God  ?  Has  he  revealed  himself  ?  Has  he  estab- 
lished a  church  ?  Is  that  church  an  infallible  teacher  ?  Is 
private  judgment  a  blind  leader  ?  Which  of  all  pretended 
churches  is  the  true  one  ?  Every  one  of  these  questions  evidently 
must  be  settled  in  the  private  judgment  of  the  inquirer,  before  he 
can,  rationally  or  irrationally,  give  up  his  private  judgment  to 
the  direction  of  the  self-asserting  church.  Thus  of  necessity  Ro- 
manists appeal  to  the  Scriptures  to  prove  that  the  Scriptures  can 


EOMISH  DOCTRINE  REFUTED.  89 

not  be  understood,  and  address  arguments  to  the  private  judg- 
ment of  men  to  prove  that  private  judgment  is  incompetent;  thus 
basing  an  argument  upon  that  which  it  is  the  object  of  the  argu- 
ment to  prove  is  baseless. 

23.  How  may  it  he  proved  that  the  people  are  far  more  com- 
petent to  discover  lohat  the  Bible  teaches  than  to  decide,  by  the 
marks  insisted  upon  by  the  Boma^iists,  ivhich  is  the  true  church  ? 

The  Eomanists,  of  necessity,  set  forth  certain  marks  by  which 
the  true  church  is  to  be  discriminated  from  all  counterfeits. 
These  are  (1.)  Unity  (through  subjection  to  one  visible  head,  the 
Pope  ;)  (2.)  Holiness  ;  (3.)  Catholicity ;  (4.)  Apostolicity,  (in- 
volving an  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  apostles  of  canoni- 
cally  ordained  bishops.) — Cat.  of  Council  of  Trent,  Part  I.,  Cap. 
10.  Now,  the  comprehension  and  intelligent  application  of  tliese 
marks  involve  a  great  amount  of  learning  and  intelligent  capacity 
upon  the  part  of  the  inquirer.  He  might  as  easily  prove  himself 
to  be  descended  from  Noah  by  an  unbroken  series  of  legitimate 
marriages,  as  establish  the  right  of  Rome  to  the  last  mark.  Yet 
he  can  not  rationally  give  up  the  right  of  studying  the  Bible  for 
himself  until  that  point  is  made  cl'ear. 

Surely  the  Scriptures,  with  their  self-evidencing  spiritual 
power,  make  less  exhaustive  demands  upon  the  resources  of  pri- 
vate judgment. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE     CANON     OF     SCRIPTURE. 

1.  What  is  meant  hy  the  'phrase,  canon  of  Scripture  ? 

The  Greek  word  Kav6v,  canon,  signifies  primarily  a  reed,  a 
staff,  and  then  a  measuring  rod,  then  a  rule  of  life  and  doctrine. — 
G-al.  vi.,  16  ;  Phil,  iii.,  16.  The  canon  of  Holy  Scripture  is  the 
entire  word  of  Grod,  consisting  of  all  the  books  which  holy  men 
of  old  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  constitut- 
ing our  complete  and  only  rule  of  foith  and  practice. 

In  order  to  determine  this  canon  we  have  to  prove,  Ist.  That 
the  writings  now  recognized  by  Protestants  as  a  part  of  God's 
word  were,  in  fact,  written  by  the  inspired  men  whom  they  claim 
as  their  authors.  2d.  That  they  have  not  been  materially  altered 
in  their  transmission  to  us.  3d.  That  no  other  extant  writings 
have  any  valid  claim  to  a  place  in  the  canon. 

2.  What  is  meant  by  the  genuineness  and  ivhat  hy  the  authen- 
ticity of  a  hook  ? 

A  book  is  said  to  be  genuine  when  it  was  really  written  by 
the  person  from  whom  it  professes  to  have  originated,  otherwise 
it  is  spurious.  A  book  is  said  to  be  authentic  when  its  con- 
tents coiTespond  with  the  truth  on  the  subject  concerning  which 
it  treats,  otherwise  it  is  fictitious. 

A  novel,  though  always  fictitious,  is  genuine  when  it  bears 
the  name  of  its  real  author.  A  history  is  both  genuine  and  au- 
thentic, if  it  was  written  by  its  professed  author,  and  if  its  narra- 
tions correspond  Avith  the  facts  as  they  occurred. 

3.  What  are  the  general  principles  upon  lohich  Protestants 
settle  the  canon  of  Scripture,  and  loherein  do  they  differ  from 
those  upon  which  Romanists  proceed  ? 


OLD    TESTAMENT    CANON.  91 

Protestants  found  their  defense  Lotli  of  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  books  severally  constituting  the  canon  of 
Scrijjture,  as  received  by  them,  upon  the  same  historical  and  criti- 
cal evidence  that  is  uniformly  relied  upon  by  literary  men,  to 
establish  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  any  ancient  writings 
whatever.  The  only  difference  is,  that  in  the  case  of  the  books 
constituting  Holy  Scripture,  these  evidences  are  preeminently 
numerous  and  conclusive. 

These  evidences  are  generally,  1st.  Internal,  such  as  language, 
style,  nature  and  mutual  harmony  of  subjects.  2.  External,  such 
as  testimony  of  cotemporaneous  writers,  the  universal  consent  of 
cotemporary  readers,  and  corroborating  history  drawn  from  inde- 
pendent, credible  sources. 

The  Romish  theologians,  while  referring  to  all  these  sources 
of  evidence  as  of  corroborating  though  subordinate  value,  yet 
maintain  the  plenary  infallibility  and  authority  of  the  church, 
uj)on  which  they  found  the  credibility  of  Scripture,  and  of  its 
several  parts. 

4.  When  was  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  completed  ? 

When  the  five  books  of  Moses  were  completed,  they  were  de- 
posited in  the  ark  of  the  covenant. — Deut.  xxxi.,  24-26.  The 
writings  of  the  subsequent  prophets  were  accredited  and  generally 
receivetl  as  they  appeared,  and  were  then  preserved  with  pious 
care  by  the  Jews. 

The  uniform  Jewish  tradition  is,  that  the  collection  and  seal- 
ing of  the  Old  Testament  canon  was  accomplished  by  Ezra  and  a 
number  of  other  holy  men,  who,  after  the  building  of  the  second 
temple,  formed  with  him  the  "  Great  Synagogue,"  consisting  of 
one  hundred  and  twenty  members,  among  whom,  however,  they 
enumerated  many  who  lived  in  far  separate  ages. 

"The  more  probable  conclusion  is,"  says  Dr.  Alexander,  "that 
Ezra  (B.  C.  457)  began  this  work,  and  collected  and  arranged  all 
the  sacred  books  which  belonged  to  the  canon  before  his  time,  and 
that  a  succession  of  pious  and  learned  men  continued  to  pay  at- 
tention to  the  canon,"  (the  last  prophetical  writer  being  Malachi, 
B.  C.  400,)  "  until  the  whole  was  completed  about  the  time  of 
Simon  the  Just,"    (B.  C.  300,)   who  appears  to  have  carried 


92  THE   CANON   OF    SCKIPTURE. 

down  the  genealogical  lists  to  his  own  day. — Neh,  xii.,  22  ;  1 
Chron.  iii.,  19,  etc. 

5.  Give  a  synopsis  of  the  argument  by  ivliicli  the  genuineness 
of  the  hooks  constituting  our  received  canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  established  ? 

1st.  The  canon  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  as  it  existed  in  the 
time  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  was  abundantly  witnessed  to 
by  them  as  both  genuine  and  authentic.  (1.)  Christ  refers  to 
these  writings  as  an  infallible  rule. — Mark  xiv.,  49  ;  John  v.,  39; 
X.,  35.  He  quotes  them  by  their  comprehensive  and  generally 
recognized  title — the  law,  the  prophets,  the  holy  writings — the 
last  division  being  sometimes  called  the  Psalms,  from  the  first  book 
it  contained. — Luke  xxiv.,  44.  (2.)  The  apostles  refer  to  these 
books  as  divine,  and  quote  them  as  final  authority. — 2  Tim.  iii., 
15,  16  ;  Acts  i.,  16,  etc.  (3.)  Christ  often  rebuked  the  Jews  for 
disobeying,  never  for  forging  or  corrupting,  the  text  of  their  Scrip- 
tures.— Matt,  xxii,,  29. 

2d.  The  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  as  it  is 
received  by  all  Protestants,  is  the  same  as  that  which  was  authen- 
ticated by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  (1.)  The  New  Testament 
writers  quote  as  Scripture  almost  every  one  of  the  books  we  now 
recognize,  and  they  quote  no  other  as  Scripture.  The  number  of 
direct  quotations  and  implied  allusions  to  the  language  of  the 
Old  Testament  occurring  in  the  New  have  been  traced  in  up- 
wards of  six  hundred  instances.  (2.)  The  Septuagint,  or  Greek 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  made  in  Egypt  B.  C.  285, 
which  was  itself  frequently  quoted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
embraced  every  book  we  now  recognize.  (3.)  Joseplius,  who  was 
born  A.  D.  37,  in  his  first  book  in  answer  to  Ajjion,  enumerates 
as  Hebrew  Scriptures  the  same  books  by  their  classes.  (4.)  The 
uniform  testimony  of  the  early  Christian  writers,  e.  g.,  "  Melito, 
A.  D.  177  ;  Origen,  A.  D.  230  ;  Athanasius,  A.  D.  326  ;  Jerome 
A.  D.  390  ;  Augustine  A.  D.  395."  (5.)  Ever  since  the  time  of 
Christ,  Jews  and  Christians  have  been  severally  custodians  of  the 
same  canon.  Their  agreement  with  us  to-day  demonstrates  the 
identity  of  our  Scriptures  with  those  of  the  Jews  of  the  first 
century. 


APOCRYPHA.  93 

6.  What  are  the  Apocryj^ha  ? 

The  word  Apocrypha,  from  dnb  and  wpvTTTw,  signifying  any- 
thing hidden,  concealed,  has  been  aj^plied  to  certain  ancient  writ- 
ings whose  authorship  is  not  manifest,  and  in  behalf  of  which 
unfounded  claims  have  been  sot  up  for  a  place  in  the  canon  of 
IScripture.  Some  of  these  are  associated  with  the  Old  and  others 
with  the  New  Testament  canon.  This  name,  however,  is  more 
prominently  associated  with  ^hose  spurious  writings  for  which  a 
place  is  claimed  among  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  because  an 
active  controversy  concerning  these  exists  between  Romanists  and 
Protestants.  They  were  also  styled  by  the  early  church  ecclesi- 
astical, to  distinguish  them  from  the  acknowledged  word  of 
God.  In  later  times  they  have  been  styled  by  some  Eomanists 
Deutero-canonical,  as  occupying  a  certain  secondary  place  in  the 
canon,  some  say  as  to  authority,  others  merely  as  to  succession 
in  time. 

These  are  Tobtt,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Ecdesiasticus,  Baruh,  and 
the  two  hooks  of  llaccabees.  They  also  add  six  chapters  to  the 
book  of  Esther.  They  prefix  to  the  book  of  Daniel  the  History  of 
Susannah,  and  insert  in  the  third  chapter  the  Song  of  the  Three 
Children,  and  add  to  the  end  of  the  book  the  History  of  Bel  and 
the  Dragon.  The  Romish  church,  on  the  other  hand,  rejects  as 
spurious  certain  other  books  which  are  found  side  by  side  with 
the  above  in  the  early  Greek  Scriptures,  and  in  their  Latin  trans- 
lations, e.  g.,  the  third  and  fourth  books  of  Esdras,  the  third  book 
of  Maccabees,  the  151st  Psalm,  the  appendix  to  Job,  and  the 
preface  to  Lamentations. — Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  4. 

See  Alexander  on  Canon,  and  Kitto's  Bib.  Ency.,  Art.  "  Deu- 
tero  Canonical." 

7.  How  did  they  become  associated  loith  Holy  Scrij^ture,  and 
upon  what  ground  do  the  Romanists  advocate  their  place  in  the 
canon  ? 

They  are  believed  to  have  been  written  by  Alexandrian  Jews 
between  the  ages  of  Malachi  and  Christ.  They  fust  appear  in 
certain  history  in  the  Greek  language,  and  in  connection  with  the 
Septuagint  translation  of  the  genuine  Scriptures,  among  which  it 
is  probable  they  were  surreptitiously  introduced  by  heretics. 


94  THE    CANON   OF    SCRIPTURE. 

The  Romanists  argue,  1st.  Tliat  they  appear  in  the  first  Greek 
copies  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  Latin  translation  from 
them.  2d.  That  they  were  highly  reverenced  and  quoted  by  the 
early  fathers.  3d.  That  the  church  in  her  plenary  authority  has 
authenticated  them  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  A.  D.  1546. 

8.  Give  a  synopsis  of  the  argument  hy  which  their  7'ight  to  a 
place  in  the  canon  is  disproved  ? 

1st.  These  books  never  formed  part  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

2d.  The  Jews  were  the  divinely  appointed  guardians  of  the 
ancient  oracles. — Rom.  iii.,  2.  Christ  charged  them  with  making 
the  written  word  of  none  effect  by  their  traditions,  but  never  Avitli 
mutilating  the  record. — Matt,  xv.,  6.  Yet  the  Jews  have  uni- 
formly denied  the  spurious  books  in  question  from  the  time  of 
Josephus  to  the  present. — Josephus'  Answer  to  Apion,  Book  I., 
sec.  8. 

3d.  These  books  were  never  quoted  either  by  Christ  or  his 
apostles. 

4th.  Although  held  by  the  early  fathers  to  be  useful  as  his- 
tory for  the  general  purposes  of  edification,  they  were  never  held 
as  authoritative  in  settling  matters  of  faith.  They  were  not  em- 
braced in  the  earliest  lists  of  the  canon.  Jerome,  the  most  learned 
of  the  fiithers,  living  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century,  re- 
jected their  claims.  They  were  held  as  of  very  doubtful  and 
secondary  authority  by  many  prominent  Romanist  teachers  up 
to  the  very  time  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  c.  g.,  Erasmus,  Cardinal 
Cajetan,  etc. 

5th  The  internal  evidence  presented  by  their  contents  confirms 
the  external  evidence  above  set  forth.  (1.)  None  of  them  make 
any  claim  to  inspiration  ;  the  best  of  them  plainly  disclaim  it, 
e.  g.,  Ecclesiasticus,  1st  and  2d  Maccabees.  (2.)  The  contents  of 
many  of  them  consist  of  childish  fables  ;  they  are  inconsistent  in 
fact  and  defective  in  morality. 

6th.  All  Protestants  agree  in  rejecting  them. — See  6lh  Article 
of  Religion  in  the  Episcopal  Prayer-Book,  and  Confession  of  Faith, 
chap,  i.,  sec.  3.  Alexander  on  Canon,  and  Home's  Introduction, 
Vol.  I.,  Appendix  5. 

9.  What  is  the  Tcdmud,  and  how  is  it  regarded  hy  the  Jews  ? 


TALMUD.  95 

The  Jews  pretend  that  when  Moses  was  with  the  Lord  in  the 
mount  he  received  one  law  which  he  was  to  reduce  to  writing, 
and  another  law,  explanatory  and  supplementary  to  the  former, 
which  he  was  to  commit  to  certain  leaders  of  the  people  to  be 
transmitted  through  oral  tradition  to  the  remotest  generations. 
This  oral  law  he  did  thus  commit  through  Aaron,  Eliezer,  and 
Joshua,  to  the  prophets,  and  through  the  prophets  to  the  rabbins 
of  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  who  reduced  it  to 
writing,  because  such  a  precaution  was  then  necessary  for  its  pre- 
servation under  the  dispersed  and  depressed  condition  of  Israel. 
This  oral  law,  as  wiitten,  constitutes  the  Mishna,  or  text,  which, 
together  with  the  Gemara  or  commentary  thereon,  constitutes  the 
Talmud. 

There  are  two  Gemaras,  and,  consequently,  two  Talmuds. 
The  Jerusalem  Gemara,  compiled  some  say  in  the  third,  and  others 
in  the  fourth  century.  The  Babylonian,  compiled  in  the  sixth 
century.  This  last,  together  with  the  Mishna,  constitutes  the 
Talmud  which  is  most  highly  esteemed  by  the  modern  Jews,  and 
is  really,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  fountain  of 
their  religion. 

It  is  reputed  by  competent  scholars  as  beyond  parallel  trivial, 
and  full  of  intellectual  and  moral  darkness.  It  derives  not  one 
iota  of  support  from  a  single  word  of  Scripture.  Its  incij^ient 
spirit  was  severely  condemned  by  Christ  in  the  Pharisees  of  his 
day.— Matt,  xv.,  1-9  ;  Mark  vii.,  1-13. 

10.  When  loas  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  settled,  and 
hy  lohat  authority  ? 

The  authority  of  every  inspired  writing  is  inherent  in  itself  as 
God's  word,  but  the  fact  of  its  being  the  work  of  inspired  men  is 
ascertained  to  us  by  the  testimony  of  cotemporaries,  who  were  the 
only  competent  witnesses  on  the  subject.  Every  gospel  epistle  or 
prophecy  written  by  an  apostle,  or  by  a  known  comiianion  of  an 
apostle,  and  claiming  scriptural  authority,  was  received  as  such 
by  all  Christians  to  whom  it  was  known.  Considering  the  pov- 
erty of  the  early  Christians,  the  persecutions  to  which  they  were 
subject,  the  imperfect  means  of  multiplying  copies  of  Scripture  at 
their  disposal,  the  comparative  infrequency  of  intercommunication 
in  those  days,  the  apostolic  writings  were  disseminated  with  a 


96  THE   CANON   OF   SCRIPTURE. 

rapidity,  and  acknowledged  with  a  universality  of  consent  truly 
wonderful.  Such  writings  as  were  directed  to  particular  churches 
were  immediately  accredited  ;  while  the  circular  letters  or  ej)istles 
generally  were  longer  left  in  doubt.  Each  individual  church  and 
teacher  received  all  of  the  apostolic  writings  which  they  were  in  a 
position  to  ascertain  by  legitimate  evidence.  With  regard  to 
most  of  the  books  composing  our  present  Bibles  general  consent 
was  established  from  the  first,  while  with  regard  to  a  few  a  j^eriod 
of  doubt  and  investigation  intervened.  During  this  period  they 
were  distributed  into  two  classes.  1st.  The  homologoumena  or 
universally  received,  comprising  the  large  majority  of  the  books  we 
possess.  2d.  The  autilegomena  or  the  controverted,  2d  Peter, 
James,  Jude,  2d  and  3d  John,  Revelations,  and  Hebrews.  Most 
of  this  last  class,  however,  were  received  by  the  majority  of  Chris- 
tians from  the  beginning,  and  their  evidences,  after  the  most 
thorough  scrutiny,  secured  universal  assent  by  the  fourth  cen- 
tury.— See  Jones'  New  Method,  Part  I.,  chap.  v.  ;  Kitto's  Bib. 
Ency.,  Art.  "  Autilegomena." 

11.  Give  a  synopsis  of  the  argument  estahlishiny  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  books  contained  in  the  received  canon  of  the  Neio  Tes- 
tament. 

1st.  Any  writing  proved  to  be  written  by  an  apostle,  or  under 
the  supervision  of  an  apostle,  is  to  be  regarded  as  part  of  the  canon 
of  Scripture. 

2d.  The  universal  or  the  nearly  universal  consent  of  the  early 
Christians  to  the  fact  of  the  derivation  of  a  writing  from  an 
apostle,  or  from  one  wiiting  under  an  apostle's  sujiervision, 
conclusively  establishes  the  right  of  such  a  writing  to  a  place  in 
the  canon. 

3d.  The  fact  that  the  early  Christians  unite  in  testifying  to 
the  genuineness  of  most  of  the  books  constituting  our  New  Testa- 
ment, and  that  a  majority  of  these  witnesses  testify  to  the  genu- 
ineness of  all  of  them,  is  abundantly  proved. 

(1.)  The  early  Christian  writers  in  all  parts  of  the  world  con- 
sent in  quoting  as  Scripture  the  writings  now  embraced  in  our 
canon,  while  they  quote  all  other  writings  only  for  illustration, 
not  authority. 

(2.)  The  earliest  church  fathers,  beginning  with  Origen,  about 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  97 

A,  D.  210,  furnish  for  the  guidance  of  their  disciples  catalogues 
of  the  hooks  they  held  to  be  canonical.  Jones,  in  his  work  on 
the  New  Testament  Canon,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  60-63,  cites  thirteen  of 
the  earliest  catalogues,  ranging  from  A.  D.  210  to  A.  D.  390  ; 
seven  of  these  agree  perfeqtly  with  ours  ;  three  others  agree  per- 
fectly with  ours,  only  omitting  Revelations  ;  one  other  omits 
only  Revelations  and  Hebrews  ;  one  other  agrees  with  ours,  only 
speaking  doubtful  of  Hebrews  ;  and  one  other  speaks  doubtfully 
of  James,  Jude,  2d  Peter,  2d  and  3d  John. 

(3.)  The  earliest  translations  of  the  Scriptures  into  other  lan- 
guages prove  that,  at  the  time  they  were  made,  the  books  they 
contain  were  recognized  as  Scripture,  a.  The  Peshito  or  ancient 
Syriac  translation,  made  during  the  first  or  second  century,  includes 
the  four  gospels.  Acts,  all  the  epistles  of  Paul,  the  epistle  of  James, 
and  the  1st  epistle  of  John,  and  the  1st  of  Peter.  Revelations 
was  probably  longer  in  being  recognized,  because  its  contents  were 
60  mysterious  that  it  was  not  as  much  read  or  as  diligently  circu- 
lated as  the  others,  h.  The  Italic  or  early  Latin  version  is  not 
now  extant,  but  it  is  believed  to  have  contained  the  same  books 
afterwards  embraced  in  the  vulgate  or  version  of  St.  Jerome,  A.  D. 
385,  which  agrees  wholly  with  ours. 

4th.  The  internal  evidences  corroborate  the  external  testimony. 

(1.)  The  language  in  which  these  books  were  written  (later 
Grreek  qualified  by  Hebrew  idiom)  proves  their  authors  to  have 
lived  in  Palestine,  and  at  the  precise  age  of  the  world  in  which 
their  reputed  authors  did  live  there. 

(2.)  They  present  precisely  that  unity  in  essentials  with  cir- 
cumstantial diversities  which  is  most  convincing.  Paley  (in  his 
Hora3  Paulin{\3)  has  demonstrated  that  the  Acts  and  the  Pauline 
Epistles  mutually  confirm  each  other.  See  also  Blunt's  Unde- 
signed Coincidences,  and  the  various  Harmonies  of  the  Gospels. 
The  whole  New  Testament  forms  an  inseparable  whole. 

(3.)  They  have  all  been  found  precious  by  God's  spiritual 
church  of  all  ages,  and  are  quick  and  powerful  to  the  conscience. 

5th.  With  resi)ect  to  those  smaller  writings,  the  testimony  for 
which  is  not  as  absolutely  unanimous  as  for  the  rest,  there  re- 
mains this  invincible  presumption,  that  God  would  not  permit 
his  true  people  all  over  the  world  and  of  all  ages  to  coiTUj^t  his 
word  with  the  admixture  of  human  compositions. 

n 


98  THE   CANON    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

12.  What  special  questions  do  the  luritings  of  Mark  and 
Luke  present  ? 

The  testimony  that  the  second  and  third  gospels  were  really- 
written  by  these  men  is  unanimous  and  unquestioned,  but  as  they 
were  not  ajiostles  the  question  is  as  to  the  proof  that  their  writ- 
ings are  inspired. 

Although  not  themselves  apostles,  they  were  the  immediate 
associates  of  those  princes  of  the  church,  and  there  was  a  well- 
accredited  tradition  among  the  fathers  that  Mark  wrote  his  gospel 
under  the  direction  of  Peter,  and  that  Luke  wrote  his  under  the 
direction  of  Paul.  Their  writings  were  widely  circulated  thirty 
years  before  the  death  of  John,  and  while  Peter  and  Paul  were 
living,  and  yet  they  were  among  the  very  first  Scriptures  to  be 
universally  received  as  canonical.  They  therefore  must  have  been 
approved  by  at  least  the  apostle  John.  Besides  this,  their  in- 
ternal evidence,  literary,  moral,  and  spiritual,  and  their  harmony 
with  the  other  Scriptures  in  spirit  and  as  to  fact,  establishes  their 
claim. — See  Alexander  on  Canon,  Part  II.,  Sec.  7. 

13.  By  what  marks  have  the  Apocryphal  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  era  been  discriminated  from  the  genuine  writings  of 
the  apostles  ? 

The  writings  thus  discriminated  by  the  early  Christians  were 
of  two  kinds — 

1st.  The  genuine  wiitings  of  holy  men  who  lived  in  the  age 
immediately  subsequent  to  the  apostles,  and  who  wrote  edifying 
epistles  and  treatises  on  topics  of  Christian  doctrine  or  practice. 
These  were  called  ecclesiastical,  and  were  often  read  in  the 
churches  for  edification,  though  never  appealed  to  as  author- 
ity, e.  g.,  Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus  and  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas. 

2d.  Spurious  compositions,  fiilsely  set  forth  as  the  writings  of 
Christ  or  of  his  apostles,  or  of  tlieir  disciples.  Some  of  these  were 
well  intentioned  pious  frauds  ;  others  were  the  forgeries  of  here- 
tics. A  few  of  these  appeared  in  the  second,  but  most  in  the 
fourth  century,  and  the  greater  part  are  now  lost.  As  far  as  their 
names  can  be  recovered,  Mr.  Jones  has  given  a  complete  list  both 
of  those  now  extant  and  of  those  that  have  been  lost. — Jones' 
iNew  Method,  Part  I.,  chap,  iii,  and  Part  III.    The  principal  writ- 


SACRED   TEXT.  99 

ings  of  this  class  now  extant  are  the  Letter  of  our  Saviour  to 
Ahgarus,  king  of  Edessa  ;  the  Constitutions  and  Creed  of  the 
Apostles  ;  the  Gospel  of  our  Sa\aour's  Infancy  ;  Letters  of  Paul 
to  Seneca  ;  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  etc. 

Mr.  Jones  has  set  down  several  marks  in  his  work,  Part  I., 
chaps,  xi.,  xii.,  xiii.,  by  which  all  these  writings  may  be  proved  to 
constitute  no  jiart  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  sum  of  the  results  of 
his  investigations  in  the  first  and  second  parts  of  his  worlc  are, 
that  all  these  writings  are  proved  by  their  contents  to  be  unworthy 
of  a  place  in  the  canon  ;  by  their  style  not  to  be  the  work  of  their 
reputed  authors  ;  by  frequent  contradictions  not  to  be  consistent 
with  the  received  Scriptures.  That  not  one  of  them  was  ever 
quoted  or  enrolled  as  canonical  by  any  competent  number  of  cotem- 
poraneous  witnesses.  That  nearly  all  of  them  were  expressly  repu- 
diated as  spurious,  or  at  least  as  uninspired,  by  the  early  church. 

14.  What  are  the  sources  from  lohich  the  true  text  of  the  Old 
Testame7it  is  ascertained  ? 

1st,  Ancient  manuscripts.  The  Jews  have  always  copied  and 
preserved  their  manuscripts  with  superstitious  care,  even  count- 
ing the  words  and  letters.  "  In  the  period  between  the  sixth 
and  tenth  centuries  they  had  two  celebrated  academies,  one  at 
Babylon,  in  the  East,  and  the  other  at  Tiberias,  in  the  West, 
where  their  literature  was  cultivated,  and  their  Scriptures  fre- 
quently transcribed.  Hence  arose  two  distinct  recensions  or 
editions  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  which  were  collated  in  the 
(eighth  or  ninth  centuries,"  and  the  text  thus  prepared  is  the 
masoretic  or  traditioncd  text  which  we  now  have  in  our  Hebrew 
Bibles.  The  most  ancient  existing  Hebrew  manuscripts  date 
from  the  ninth  or  tenth  centuries.  The  majority  range  from 
A.  D.  1000  to  A.  D.  1457.  Tlie  oldest  extant  printed  Hebrew 
Bible  dates  A.  D.  1488.  Dr.  Kennicott  collated  in  preparation 
for  his  critical  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  six  hundred  and  thirty 
manuscripts,  and  M.  de  Kossi  collated  nine  hundred  and  fifty- 
eight.  The  various  readings  presented  by  these  manuscripts  in 
very  few  cases  involve  the  sense  of  the  passage,  and  chiefly  relate 
to  differences  in  the  vowel  points,  accents,  etc. 

2d.  We  may  correct  the  existing  text  by  comparing  it  with 
(1.)  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  or  the  edition  of  the  five  books 


100  THE   CANON   OF   SCRIPTURE. 

of  Moses  which  the  Samaritans  inherited  from  the  ten  tribes. 
(2.)  The  Targums,  which  are  eleven  books  in  number,  some  of  them 
dating  from  the  iirst  century  before  Christ,  and  being  generally 
veiy  accurate  paraphrases  of  the  Hebrew  Scri2)tures  in  the  an- 
cient Chaldee.  (3.)  With  the  early  translations  of  the  Scriptures 
into  other  languages,  a  The  Greek  Septuagint,  made  B.  C. 
285.  h  The  Peshito  or  ancient  Syriac  version,  A.  D.  100  about, 
c  The  Latin  Vulgate  made  by  Jerome  A.  D.  385. — Home's 
Introduction. 

15.  What  are  the  sources  from  tuhich  the  true  text  of  the  New 
Testament  Scrii^ture  is  ascertained  ? 

1st.  Ancient  manuscripts.  The  oldest  and  most  authorita- 
tive G-reek  manuscripts  now  extant :  (1.)  The  Codex  Alexandri- 
nus  of  the  fifth  century,  (called  A.)  now  in  the  British  Museum. 
(2.)  The  Codex  Vaticanus  of  the  fourth  century,  (called  B.)  now 
in  the  Vatican  Library  at  Eomc.  (3.)  Codex  Kegius  of  the  sixth 
century,  (called  C.)  now  in  the  Royal  Library,  Paris.  (4.)  The 
Codex  Bezos  of  the  sixth  century,  (called  D.)  now  in  the  Univer- 
sity Library,  Cambridge.  Manuscripts  succeeding  these  in  age, 
up  to  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  abound  all  over  Europe. 
Upwards  of  six  hundred  have  been  diligently  collated  in  prepara- 
tion for  recent  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament.  The  results  of 
the  most  thorough  investigations  is  uniformly  declared  by  the 
most  competent  scholars  to  establish  beyond  question  the  integ- 
rity of  the  sacred  text. 

2d.  The  numerous  and  accurate  quotations  of  the  Scriptures 
jireserved  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Christians,  "  In  not  less 
than  one  hundred  and  eighty  ecclesiastical  writers,  whose  works 
are  still  extant,  are  quotations  from  the  New  Testament  intro- 
duced, and  so  numerous  are  they,  that  from  the  works  of  those 
that  flourished  before  the  seventh  century  the  whole  text  of  the 
New  Testament  might  have  been  recovered,  if  the  originals  had 
perished." 

3d.  Early  translations  into  other  languages.  (1.)  The  Peshito 
or  ancient  Syriac  version  about  A  .D.  100.  (2.)  The  Latin  Vulgate 
of  Jerome  A.  D.  385.  (3.)  The  Coptic  of  the  fifth  century,  and 
others  of  less  critical  value. — Home's  Intro.,  and  Angus'  Bible 
Hand-Book, 


CHAPTER    VII. 

THE     ATTRIBUTES     OF     GOD. 

As  the  result  of  the  argument  for  the  being  of  God  presented  in 
the  first  chapter,  we  found  (Chap.  I.,  question  20)  that  even  the 
light  of  nature  surely  discovers  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that  he  is  a 
personal  spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  self-existent,  the  first  cause  of 
all  things,  infinitely  intelligent,  powerful,  free  of  will,  righteous, 
and  benevolent.  It  remains  for  us  in  the  present  chapter  to 
attempt  to  collect  and  present  that  additional  and  clearer  knowl- 
edge of  the  divine  nature  which  the  Scriptures  make  known  to  us 
by  means  of  his  names  and  his  attributes. 

1.  State  the  etymology  and  meaning  of  the  several  names  ap- 
propriated to  God  in  the  Scriptures. 

1st.  Jehovah,  from  the  Hebrew  verb  njn,  to  he.  It  expresses 
self-existence  and  unchangeableness  ;  it  is  the  incommunicable 
name  of  God,  which  the  Jews  superstitiously  refused  to  pro- 
nounce, always  substituting  in  their  reading  the  word  Adonai, 
Lord.  Hence  it  is  represented  in  our  English  version  by  the  word 
Lord,  printed  in  capital  letters, 

Jah,  probably  an  abbreviation  of  the  name  Jehovah,  is  used 
principally  in  the  Psalms. — Ps.  Ixviii.,  4.  It  constitutes  the  con- 
cluding syllable  of  hallelujah,  praise  Jehovah. 

God  gave  to  Moses  his  peculiar  name,  "  I  am  that  I  am," 
Ex,  iii.,  14,  from  the  same  root,  and  bearing  the  same  funda- 
mental significance  as  Jehovah. 

2d.  El,  might,  poiver,  translated  God,  and  applied  alike  to 
the  true  and  to  the  false  gods. — Isa.  xliv.,  10. 

3d.  Elohim  and  Eloah,  the  same  name  in  its  singular  and 
plural  form,  derived  from  nVij,  to  fear,  reverence.  "In  its  singular 
form  it  is  used  only  in  the  latter  books  and  in  poetry."     In  the 


102  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

plural  foi-m  it  is  sometimes  used  with  a  plural  sense  for  gods,  but 
more  commonly  as  a  pluralis  exccllentia3,  for  God.  It  is  applied 
to  false  gods,  but  preeminently  to  Jehovah  as  the  great  object  of 
adoration. 

4th.  Adonai,  the  Lord,  a  pluralis  excellentiae,  applied  ex- 
clusively to  God,  expressing  possession  and  sovereign  dominion, 
equivalent  to  kvqlo^,  Lord,  so  frequently  applied  to  Christ  in  the 
New  Testament. 

5th.  Saddai,  almighty,  a  pluralis  excellentia3.  Sometimes  it 
stands  by  itself — Job  v.,  17  ;  and  sometimes  combined  with  a 
preceding  El. — Gen.  xvii.,  1. 

6th.  Elyon,  Host  High,  a  verbal  adjective  from  nVy,  to  go  up, 
ascend. — Ps.  ix.,  3;  xxi.,  8, 

7th.  The  term  Tzebaoth,  of  hosts,  is  frequently  used  as  an 
epithet  qualifying  one  of  the  above-mentioned  names  of  God. 
Thus,  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  God  of  Hosts,  Jehovah,  God  of  Hosts. — 
Amos  iv.,  13;  Ps.  xxiv.,  10.  Some  have  thought  this  equivalent 
to  God  of  Battles.  The  true  force  of  the  epithet,  however,  is 
"  sovereign  of  the  stars,  material  hosts  of  heaven,  and  of  the  an- 
gels their  inhabitants." — Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  Com.  on  Ps.  xxiv., 
10,  and  Gesenius'  Heb.  Lex. 

8th.  Many  other  epithets  are  applied  to  God  metaphorically, 
to  set  forth  the  relation  he  sustains  to  us  and  the  offices  he  ful- 
fills, e.  g.,  King,  Lawgiver,  Judge. — Isa.  xxxiii.,  17  ;  Ps.  xxiv., 
8  ;  1.,  6.  Eock,  Fortress,  Tower,  Deliverer. — 2  Sam.  xxii.,  2,  3  ; 
Ps.  Ixii.,  2.  Shepherd,  Husbandman. — Ps.  xxiii.,  1;  John,  xv.,  1. 
Father,  Matt,  vi ,  9  ;  John  xx.,  17,  etc. 

2.   What  are  the  divine  attributes  ? 

As  God  is  infinite  in  his  being,  and  in  all  the  affections  and 
modes  thereof,  it  is  manifestly  impossible  for  any  creature  to  con- 
ceive of  him  as  he  is  in  himself,  or  as  he  apprehends  his  own  infi- 
nite being  in  his  infinite  knowledge.  Yet  he  has  mercifully  con- 
descended to  reveal  himself  to  us  under  the  form  of  certain  finite 
conceptions,  which  are  possible  to  us  only  after  the  analogy  of 
our  own  spiritual  constitution,  and  because  of  the  revealed  fact 
that  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God.  They  are  imperfect, 
because  finite  conceptions ;  they  are  tiiic,  because  revealed  by  God 
himself  to  man  created  in  his  own  image.     The  word  attribute 


CLASSIFICATION.  103 

signifies  that  which  in  human  thought,  on  the  authority  of  divine 
revelation,  is  to  be  truly  attributed  to  or  predicated  of  God. 
They  are  not,  however,  to  be  conceived  of  as  properties  dis- 
tinct from  his  essence,  but  as  modes  of  conceiving  of  his  essence. 
His  knowledge  is  his  essence  knowing,  as  his  love  is  his  essence 
loving. 

Concerning  the  nature  and  operations  of  God,  we  can  know 
only  what  he  has  vouchsafed  to  reveal  to  us,  and  with  every  con- 
ception, either  of  his  being  or  his  acts,  there  must  always  attend 
an  element  of  incomprehensibility,  which  is  inseparable  from  in- 
finitude. His  knowledge  and  power  are  as  truly  beyond  all  under- 
standing as  his  eternity  or  immensity. — Job.  xi.,  7-9  ;  xxvi.,  14  ; 
Ps.  cxxxix.,  5,  6;  Isa.  xl.,  28.  The  moral  elements  of  his  glorious 
nature  are  the  norm  or  original  law  of  our  moral  faculties ;  thus 
we  are  made  capable  of  comprehending  the  ultimate  principles  of 
truth  and  justice  upon  which  he  acts.  Yet  his  action  upon  those 
principles  is  often  a  trial  of  our  faith,  and  an  occasion  of  our 
adoring  wonder. — Eom.  xi.,  33-36  ;  Isa.  Iv.,  8,  9. 

3.  Hoio  are  ive  to  understand  those  passages  of  Scripture 
which  attribute  to  God  bodily  parts  and  the  infirmities  of  human 

passion  ? 

The  passages  referred  to  are  such  as  speak  of  the /ace  of  God, 
Ex.  xxxiii.,  11,  20  ;  his  eyes,  2  Chron.,  xvi.,  9  ;  his  nostrils,  2 
Sam.  xxii.,  9, 16;  his  arms  and  feet,  Isa.  lii.,  10,  and  Ps.  xviii.,  9; 
and  such  as  speak  of  his  reiDcnting  and  grieving.  Gen.  vi.,  6,  7  ; 
Jer.  XV.,  6  ;  Ps.  xcv.,  10  ;  of  his  being  jealous,  Deut.  xxix.,  20, 
etc.  These  are  to  be  understood  only  as  metaphors.  They  rep- 
resent the  truth  with  respect  to  God  only  analogically,  and  as 
seen  from  our  point  of  view. 

When  he  is  said  to  repent,  or  to  be  grieved,  or  to  be  jealous, 
it  is  only  meant  that  he  acts  towards  us  as  a  man  would 
when  agitated  by  such  passions.  These  metaphors  occur  princi- 
pally in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  highly  rhetorical  passages  of 
the  poetical  and  prophetical  books. 

4.  Hoio  may  the  divine  attributes  be  classified  ? 

From  the  vastness  of  the  subject  and  the  incommensurateness 
of  our  faculties,  it  is  evident  that  no  classification  of  the  divine 


104  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

attributes  we  can  form  can  Tbe  anything  more  than  approximately 
accurate  and  complete.  The  most  common  classifications  rest 
upon  the  following  principles  : — 

1st.  The  attributes  of  God,  distinguished  as  communicable 
and  incommunicable.  The  communicable  are  those  to  which  the 
attributes  of  the  human  spirit  bear  the  nearest  analogy,  e.  g.,  his 
power,  knowledge,  will,  goodness,  and  righteousness.  The  incom- 
municable are  those  to  which  there  is  in  the  creature  nothing  an- 
alogous, as  eternity,  immensity,  etc.  This  distinction,  however, 
must  not  be  pressed  too  far.  Grod  is  infinite  in  his  relation  to 
space  and  time  ;  we  are  finite  in  our  relation  to  both.  But  he  is 
no  less  infinite  as  to  his  knowledge,  will,  goodness,  and  righteous- 
ness in  all  their  modes,  and  we  are  finite  in  all  these  respects. 
All  God's  attributes  known  to  us,  or  conceivable  by  us,  are  com- 
municable, in  as  much  as  they  have  their  analogy  in  us,  but  they 
are  all  alike  incommunicable,  in  as  much  as  they  are  all  infinite. 

2d.  The  attributes  of  God,  distinguished  as  natural  and  moral. 
The  natural  are  all  those  which  pertain  to  his  existence  as  an  in- 
finite, rational  Sj)irit,  e.  g.,  eternity,  immensity,  intelligence,  will, 
power.  The  moral  are  those  additional  attributes  which  belong 
to  him  as  an  infinite,  righteous  Spirit,  e.  g.,  justice,  mercy,  truth. 

I  would  diffidently  propose  the  following  four-fold  clasification: 

(1.)  Those  attributes  which  equally  qualify  all  the  rest — In- 
finitude, that  which  has  no  bounds  ;  absoluteness,  that  which  is 
determined  either  in  its  being  or  modes  of  being  or  action  by 
nothing  whatsoever  without  itself     This  includes  immutability. 

(2.)  Natural  attributes.  God  is  an  infinite  Spirit,  self-exist- 
ent, eternal,  immense,  simple,  free  of  will,  intelligetit,  poioerful. 

(3).  Moral  attributes.  God  is  a  Spirit  infinitely  righteous, 
good,  true,  and  faithful. 

(4.)  The  consummate  glory  of  all  the  divine  perfections  in 
union.     The  beauty  of  holiness. 

THE   UNITY    OF    GOD. 

6.  In  what  sense  is  God  one  ? 

1st.  There  is  only  one  God,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 

2d.  Notwithstanding  the  threefold  personal  distinction  in  the 
unity  of  the  Godhead,  yet  these  three  are  one  in  substance,  and 
constitute  one  indivisible  God. 


UNITY.  105 

6.  Hoio  may  the  proposition,  that  God  is  one  and  indivisible, 
he  proved  ? 

Ist.  There  appears  to  be  a  necessity  in  reason  for  conceiving 
of  God  as  one.  That  which  is  absolute  and  infinite  can  not  but 
be  one  and  indivisible  in  essence.  If  God  is  not  one,  then  it  will 
necessarily  follow  that  there  are  more  gods  than  one. 

2d.  The  uniform  representation  of  Scripture. — John  x.,  30.  '» 

7.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  the  proposition,  there  is  but 
one  God,  is  true. 

Deut.  vi.,  4  ;  1  Kings  viii.,  60  ;  Isa.  xliv.,  6 ;  Mark  xii.,  29, 
32  ;  1  Cor.  viii.,  4  ;  Eph.  iv.,  6. 

8.  What  is  the  argument  from  the  harmony  of  creation  in 
favor  of  the  divine  unity  ? 

The  whole  creation,  between  the  outermost  range  of  telescopic 
and  of  microscopic  observation,  is  manifestly  one  indivisible  sys- 
tem. But  we  have  already  (Chapter  I.)  proved  the  existence  of 
God  from  the  i^henomena  of  the  universe  ;  and  we  now  argue 
upon  the  same  principle  that  if  an  effect  proves  the  prior  opera- 
tion of  a  cause,  and  if  traces  of  design  prove  a  designer,  then 
singleness  of  plan  and  operation  in  that  design  and  its  execution 
prove  that  the  designer  is  one. 

9.  What  is  the  argument  upon  this  point  from  necessary 
existence  ? 

The  existence  of  God  is  said  to  be  necessary,  because  it  has  its 
cause  from  eternity  in  itself  It  is  the  same  in  all  duration  and 
in  all  space  alike.  It  is  absurd  to  conceive  of  God's  not  existing 
at  any  time  or  in  any  portion  of  space,  while  all  other  existence 
whatsoever,  depending  upon  his  mere  will,  is  contingent.  But  the 
necessity  which  is  uniform  in  all  times  and  in  every  portion  of 
space,  is  evidently  only  one  and  indivisible,  and  can  be  the  ground 
of  the  existence  only  of  one  God. 

This  argument  is  logical,  and  has  been  prized  highly  by  many 
distinguished  theologians.  It  however  appears  to  involve  the  error 
of  presuming  human  logic  to  be  the  measure  of  existence. 

10.  What  is  the  argument  from  infinite  perfection,  in  proof 
that  there  can  be  but  one  God  ? 


106  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

God  is  infinite  in  his  being  and  in  all  of  his  perfections.  But 
the  infinite,  by  including  all,  excludes  all  others.  If  there  were 
two  infinite  beings,  each  would  necessarily  include  the  other,  and 
be  included  by  it,  and  thus  they  would  be  the  same,  one  and 
identical.  It  is  certain  that  the  idea  of  the  co-existence  of  two 
infinitely  jjcrfect  beings  is  as  repugnant  to  human  reason  as  to 
Scripture. 

11.  What  is  polytheism  ?  and  tohat  dualism  ? 

Polytheism,  as  the  etymology  of  the  word  indicates,  is  a  gen- 
eral term  designating  every  system  of  rehgion  which  teaches  the 
existence  of  a  plurality  of  gods. 

Dualism  is  the  designation  of  that  system  wliich  recognizes 
two  original  and  independent  principles  in  the  universe,  the  one 
good  and  the  other  evil.  At  present  these  principles  are  in  a  rela- 
tion of  ceaseless  antagonism,  the  good  ever  struggling  to  oppose 
the  evil,  and  to  deliver  its  province  from  its  baneful  intrusion. 

12.  What  is  meant  hy  the  jphrase  simplicity,  ivhen  applied  to 
God? 

The  term  simplicity  is  used,  first,  in  opposition^jto  material 
composition,  whether  mechanical,  organic,  or  chemical ;  second, 
in  a  metaphysical  sense  in  negation  of  the  relation  of  substance 
and  property,  essence  and  mode.  In  the  first  sense  of  the  word 
human  souls  are  simple,  because  they  are  not  composed  of  ele- 
ments, parts,  or  organs.  In  the  second  sense  of  the  word  our 
souls  are  complex,  since  there  is  in  them  a  distinction  between 
their  essence  and  their  properties,  and  their  successive  modes  or 
states  of  existence.  As,  however,  God  is  infinite,  eternal,  self- 
existent  from  eternity,  necessarily  the  same  without  succession, 
theologians  have  maintained  that  in  him  essence,  and  jiroperty, 
and  mode  are  one.  He  always  is  what  he  is,  and  he  is  what  he  is 
essentially,  and  by  the  same  necessity  that  he  exists.  Whatever 
is  in  God,  whether  thought,  emotion,  volition,  or  act,  is  God. 

Although  this  distinction  has  the  sanction  of  the  higlicst  names, 
it  appears  to  involve  at  least  a  questionable  application  of  human 
reason  to  subjects  so  far  transcending  the  analogy  of  liuman  con- 
sciousness. 

13.  What  is^rmed  when  it  is  saidJhat_Godjs^ a  spirit  ? 


SPIRITUALITY.  107 

We  know  nothing  of  substance  except  as  it  is  manifested  by 
its  properties.  Matter  is  that  substance  whose  propeVties  mani- 
fest themselves  directly  to  our  bodily  senses.  Spirit  is  that  sub- 
stance whose  properties  manifest  themselves  to  us  di7'cctly  in 
self-consciousness,  and  only  infcrentialJy  by  words  and  other 
signs  or  modes  of  expression  thi-ough  our  senses. 

When  we  say  God  is  a  Spirit  we  mean — 

1st.  NeS^iii^-^yj  ^^^^  ^®  does  not  possess  bodilyparts  or  pas- 
sions ;  that  he  is  composed  of  no  material  elements  ;  that  he  is 
not  subject  to  any  of  the  limiting  conditions  of  material  exist- 
ence ;  and,  consequently,  that  he  is  not  to  be  apprehended  as  the 
object  of  any  of  our  bodily  senses. 

2d.  Ppsitively.,  that  he  is  a  rational  being,  who  distinguishes  /.r 
with  infinite  precision  between  the  true  and  the  false  ;  that  he  is 
a  moral  being,  who  distinguishes  between  the  right  and  the  wrong;    •t ,' 
that  he  is  afree^ageut,  whose  action  is  self-determined  by  his  own  3  ^ ' 
will  ;  and,  in  fine,  that  all  the  essential  properties  of  our  spirits 
may  truly  be  predicated  of  him  in  an  infinite  degree. — John  iv.,  24; 
Chap.  I.,  questions  23,  24,  27,  30. 

god's  relation  to  space. 

14.  What  is  meant  by  i1ie,immensity  of  God  ? 

The  immensity  of  God  is  the  phrase  used  to  express  the  fact 
that  God  is  infinite  in  his  relation  to  space,  i.  e.,  that  the  entire 
indivisible  essence  of  God  is  at  every  moment  of  time  cotemj)o- 
raneously  present  to  every  point  of  infinite  space. 

This  is  not  in  virtue  of  the  infinite  multiplication  of  his  Spirit, 
since  he  is  eternally  one  and  individual ;  nor  does  it  result  from 
the  infinite  diffusion  of  his  essence  through  infinite  space,  as  air 
is  diffused  over  the  surface  of  the  earth,  since,  being  a  Spirit,  he  is 
not  composed  of  parts,  nor  is  he  capable  of  extension,  but  the 
whole  Godhead  in  the  one  indivisible  essence  is  equally  j)resent  in 
every  moment  of  eternal  duration  to  the  whole  of  infinite  space, 
and  to  every  part  of  it. 

15.  Sow  does  immensity  differ  from  omnipresence  ? 

Immensity  characterizes  the  relation  of  God  to  space  vi.ewed 
abstractly  in  itself.     Omnipresence  characterizes  the  relation  of 


108  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

God  to  his  creatures  as  they  severally  occupy  their  several  posi- 
tions in  space.  The  divine  essence  is  immense  in  its  own  being, 
absolutely.     It  is  omnipresent  relatively  to  all  his  creatures. 

16.  What  are  the  different  modes  of  the  divine  presence,  and 
how  may  it  be  proved  that  he  is  everywhere  present  as  to  his 
essence  ? 

God  may  be  conceived  of  as  present  in  any  place,  or  with  any 
creature,  in  several  modes,  first,  as  to  his  essence  ;  second,  as  to 
his  knowledge  ;  third,  as  manifesting  that  presence  to  any  intelli- 
gent creature  ;  fourth,  as  exercising  his  power  in  any  way  in  oi 
upon  the  creature.  As  to  essence  and  knowledge,  his  presence  is 
the  same  everywhere  and  always.  As  to  his  self-manifestation 
and  the  exercise  of  his  power,  his  presence  differs  endlessly  in 
different  cases  in  degi'ee  and  mode.  Thus  God  is  present  to  the 
church  as  he  is  not  to  the  world.  Thus  he  is  present  in  hell  in 
the  manifestation  and  execution  of  righteous  wrath,  while  he  is 
present  in  heaven  in  the  manifestation  and  communication  of 
gracious  love  and  glory. 

That  God  is  ever}T;vhere  present  as  to  his  essence  is  proved, 
first,  from  Scripture  (1  Kings  viii.,  27 ;  Ps.  cxxxix.,  7-10  ; 
Isa.  Ixvi.,  1 ;  Acts  xvii.,  27,  28)  ;  second,  from  reason.  (1.)  It 
follows  necessarily  from  his  infinitude.  (2.)  From  the  fact 
that  his  knowledge  is  his  essence  knowing,  and  his  actions  are 
his  essence  acting.  Yet  his  knowledge  and  his  power  reach  to 
all  things. 

17.  State  the  diffe^'cnt  relations  that  bodies  created  spirits 
and  God  sustain  to  space. 

Turretin  says  :  Bodies  are  conceived  of  as  existing  in  space 
circumscriptively,  because  occupying  a  certain  portion  of  space 
they  are  bounded  by  space  upon  every  side.  Created  spirits  do 
not  occupy  any  portion  of  space,  nor  are  they  embraced  by  any, 
they  are,  however,  in  space  definitely,  as  here  and  not  there. 
God,  on  the  other  hand,  is  in  space  repletively,  because  in  a  tran- 
scendent manner  his  essence  fills  all  space.  He  is  included  in  no 
space  ;  he  is  excluded  from  none.  "Wholly  present  to  each  point, 
he  comprehends  all  space  at  once. 


RELATION  TO  TIME.  109 

THE  RELATION  OF  GOD  TO  TIME. 

18.  What  is  eternity  ? 

Eternity  is  infinite  duration  ;  duration  discharged  from  all 
limits,  without  beginning,  without  succession,  and  without  end. 
The  schoolmen  phrase  it  punctum  stans,  an  ever-abiding  present. 

"We,  however,  can  positively  conceive  of  eternity  only  as  du- 
ration indefinitely  extended  from  the  present  moment  in  two 
directions,  as  to  the  jpast  and  as  to  the  future.  These  are  im- 
properly expressed  as  eternity  a  jiarte  ante,  or  past,  and  eternity 
a  parte  post,  or  future.  The  eternity  of  God,  however,  is  one 
and  indivisible. 

19.  What  is  time  ? 

Time  is  limited  duration,  measured  by  succession,  either  of 
thought  or  motion.  It  is  distinguished  in  reference  to  our  per- 
ceptions into  past,  present,  and  future, 

20:    What  relation  does  time  bear  to  eternity  ? 

Eternity,  the  unchanging  present,  without  beginning  or  end, 
comprehends  all  time,  and  co-exists  as  an  undivided  moment, 
with  all  the  successions  of  time  as  they  appear  and  pass  in  their 
order. 

Thought  is  possible  to  us,  however,  only  under  the  limitations 
of  time  and  space.  We  can  conceive  of  God  only  under  the  finite 
fashion  of  first  purposing-  and  then  acting,  of  first  promising  or 
threatening  and  then  fulfilling  his  word,  etc.  He  that  inhabiteth 
eternity  infinitely  transcends  our  understanding. — Isa.  Ivii.,  15. 

21.  When  ive  say  that  God  is  eternal,  ivhat  do  ive  affirm,  and 
what  do  we  deny  1 

We  affirm,  first,  that  as  to  his  existence,  he  never  had  any 
beginning,  and  never  will  have  any  end  ;  second,  that  as  to  the 
mode  of  his  existence,  his  thoughts,  emotions,  purposes,  and  acts 
are,  without  succession,  one  and  inseparable  the  same  for  ever  ; 
third,  that  he  is  imniutablc. 

We  deny,  first,  that  he  ever  had  a  beginning  or  ever  will  have 
an  end  ;  second,  that  his  states  or  modes  of  being  occur  in  suc- 
cession ;  third,  that  his  essence,  attributes,  or  purposes  will  ever 
chancre. 


110  THE   ATTRIBUTES  OF   GOD. 

22.  In  what  sense  are  the  acts  of  God  spoken  of  as  past,  pre- 
sent, and  future  ? 

The  acts  of  God  are  never  past,  present,  or  future  as  respects 
God  himself,  but  only  in  respect  to  the  objects  and  effects  of  his 
acts  in  the  creature.  The  efficient  purpose  comprehending  the 
precise  object,  time,  and  circumstance  was  present  to  him  always 
and  changelessly  ;  the  event,  however,  taking  place  in  the  crea- 
ture, occurs  in  time,  and  is  thus  past,  present,  or  future  to  our 
observation. 

23.  In  tvJiat  sense  are  events  past  or  future  as  it  regards 
God? 

As  God's  knowledge  is  infinite,  every  event  must,  first,  be 
ever  equally  present  to  his  knowledge  from  eternity  to  eternity  ; 
second,  these  events  must  be  known  to  him  as  they  actually  occur 
in  themselves,  e.  g.,  in  their  true  nature,  relations,  and  succes- 
sions. This  distinction,  therefore,  holds  true — God's  knowledge 
of  all  events  is  without  beginning,  end,  or  succession  ;  but  he 
knows  them  as  in  themselves  occurring  in  the  successions  of  time, 
past,  present,  or  future,  relatively  to  one  another. 

24.  What  is  7neant  by  the  immutahility  of  God  ? 

By  his  immutability  we  mean  that  it  follows  from  the  infinite 
perfection  of  God  ;  that  he  can  not  be  changed  by  anything 
from  without  himself;  and  that  he  will  not  change  from  any 
principle  witliin  himself  That  as  to  his  essence,  his  will,  and  his 
states  of  existence,  he  is  the  same  from  eternity  to  eternity. 
Thus  he  is  absolutely  immutable  in  himself.  He  is  also  immutable 
relatively  to  the  creature,  in  so  much  as  his  knowledge,  purpose, 
and  truth,  as  these  are  conceived  by  us  .and  are  revealed  to  us,  can 
know  neither  variableness  nor  shadow  of  turning. — James  i.,  17. 

25.  Prove  from  Scripture  and  reason  that  God  is  immu- 
table. 

1st.  Scripture  :  Mai.  iii.,  6  ;  Ps.  xxxiii.,  11  ;  Isa.  xlvi.,  10 ; 
James  i.,  17. 

2d.  Reason:  (1.)  God  is  self-existent.  As  he  is  caused  by  none, 
but  causes  all,  so  he  can  be  changed  by  none,  but  changes  all. 
(2.)  He  is  the  absolute  being.    Neither  his  existence,  nor  the  man- 


RELATION    TO   TIME.  Ill 

ner  of  it,  nor  his  will,  are  determined  Ly  any  necessary  relation 
whicli  they  sustain  to  any  thing  exterior  to  himself.  As  he  pre- 
ceded all  and  caused  all,  so  his  sovereign  will  freely  determined 
the  relations  which  all  things  are  permitted  to  sustain  to  him. 
(3.)  He  is  infinite  in  duration,  and  therefore  he  can  not  know 
succession  or  change.  (4.)  He  is  infinite  in  all  perfection,  knowl- 
edge, wisdom,  righteousness,  benevolence,  will,  power,  and  there- 
fore can  not  change,  for  nothing  can  be  added  to  the  infinite  nor 
taken  from  it.  Any  change  would  make  him  either  less  than  in- 
finite before,  or  less  than  infinite  afterwards. 

26.  How  can  the  creation  of  the  world  and  the  incarnation 
of  the  Son  he  reconciled  ivith  the  immutability  of  God  ? 

1st.  As  to  the  creation.  The  efficacious  purpose,  the  will 
and  power  to  create  the  world  dwelleth  in  God  from  eternity 
without  change,  but  this  very  efficacious  purpose  itself  provided 
that  the  effect  should  take  place  in  its  proper  time  and  order. 
This  effect  took  place  from  God,  but  of  course  involved  no  sha- 
dow of  change  in  God,  as  nothing  was  either  taken  from  him  or 
added  to  him. 

2d.  As  to  the  incarnation.  The  divine  Son  assumed  a  created 
human  nature  into  personal  union  with  liimself.  His  uncreated 
essence  of  course  was  not  changed.  His  eternal  person  was  not 
changed  in  itself,  but  only  brought  into  a  new  relation.  The 
change  effected  by  that  stupendous  event  occurred  only  in  the 
created  nature  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 

THE    INFINITE   INTELLIGENCE    OF    GOD. 

27.  Hotv  does  God's  mode  of  hioiving  differ  from  ours  ? 
God's  knowledge  is,  1st,  his  essence  knowing  ;  2d,  it  is  one 

eternal,  all-comprehensive,  indivisible  act. 

(1.)  It  is  not  discursive,  i.  e.,  proceeding  logically  from  the 
known  to  the  unknown  ;  but  intuitive,  i.  e.,  discerning  all  things 
directly  in  its  own  light. 

(2.)  It  is  independaU,  i-  e.,  it  does  in  no  way  depend  upon 
his  creatures  or  their  actions,  but  solely  upon  his  own  infinite 
intuition  of  all  things  j^ossible  in  the  light  of  his  own  reason, 
and  of  all  things  actiial  and/w^wre  in  the  light  of  his  own  eternal 
purpose. 


112  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

(3.)  It  is  total  and  simultaneous^  not  succefisive.  It  is  one 
single,  indivisible  act  of  intuition,  beholding  all  things  in  them- 
selves, their  relations  and  successions,  as  ever  present. 

(4.)  It  is  j£er/^cct  and  r.ssp.ntial,  pot  reJafivp..  i.  e.,  he  knows  aU 
things  directly  in  their  hidden  essences,  while  we  know  them  only 
by  their  properties,  as  they  stand  related  to  our  senses. 

28.  How  may  the  objects  of  divine  knowledge  be  classified  ? 

1st.  God  himself  in  his  own  infinite  being.  It  is  evident  that 
this,  transcending  the  sum  of  all  other  objects,  is  the  only  ade- 
quate object  of  a  knowledge  reaUy  infinite. 

2d.  All  possible  objects,  as  such,  whether  they  are  or  ever 
have  been,  or  ever  will  be  or  not,  seen  in  the  light  of  his  own  in- 
finite reason. 

3d.  All  things  which  have  been,  are,  or  will  be,  he  compre- 
hends in  one  eternal,  simultaneous  act  of  knowledge,  as  ever  pre- 
sent actualities  to  him,  and  as  known  to  be  such  in  the  light  of 
his  own  sovereign  and  eternal  purpose. 

29.  What  is  the  technical  designation  of  the  knowledge  of 
things  possible,  and  what  is  the  foundation  of  that  knowledge  ? 

Its  technical  designation  is  scientia  simplicis  intelligentice, 
knoiuledgc  of  simple  intelligence,  so  called,  because  it  is  conceived 
by  us  as  an  act  simply  of  the  divine  intellect,  without  any  con- 
current act  of  the  divine  will.  For  the  same  reason  it  has  been 
styled  scientia  necessaria,  necessary  knowledge,  i,  e.,  not  volun- 
tary, or  determined  by  will.  The  foundation  of  that  knowledge 
is  God's  essential  and  infinitely  perfect  knowledge  of  his  own 
omnipotence. 

30.  What  is  the  technical  designation  of  the  knoivledge  of 
things  actual,  ivhether  past,  present,  or  future,  and  what  is  the 
foundation  of  that  knoivledge  ? 

It  is  called  scientia  visionis,  knoivledge  of  vision,  and  scientia 
libera,  free  knowledge,  because  his  intellect  is  in  this  case  con- 
ceived of  as  being  determined  by  a  concurrent  act  of  his  will. 

The  foundation  of  this  knowledge  is  God's  infinite  knowledge 
of  his  own  all-comprehensive  and  unchangeable  eternal  purpose. 


INFINITE  INTELLIGENCE.  113 

31.  Prove  that  the  knowledge  of  God  extends  to  future  con- 
tingent events. 

The  contingency  of  events  in  our  view  of  them  has  a  two-fold 
ground  :  first,  their  immediate  causes  may  be  by  us  indeterminate, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  dice  ;  second,  their  immediate  cause  may  be 
the  volition  of  a  free  agent.  The  first  class  are  in  no  sense  con- 
tingent in  God's  view.  The  second  class  are  foreknown  by  him 
as  contingent  in  their  cause,  but  as  none  the  less  certain  in  their 
event. 

That  he  does  foreknow  all  such  is  certain — 

1st.  Scripture  affirms  it. — 1  Sam.  xxiii.,  11,  12  ;  Acts  ii.,  23; 
XV.,  18 ;  Isa.  xlvi.,  9,  10. 

2d.  He  has  often  predicted  contingent  events  future,  at  the 
time  of  the  prophecy,  which  the  event  has  fulfilled. — Mark  xiv.,  30. 

3d.  God  is  infinite  in  all  his  perfections,  his  knowledge,  there- 
fore, must  (1.)  be  perfect,  and  comprehend  all  things  future  as 
well  as  past  (2.)  independent  of  the  creature.  He  knows  all 
things  in  themselves  by  his  own  light,  and  can  not  depend  upon 
the  will  of  the  creature  to  make  his  knowledge  either  more  cer- 
tain or  more  complete. 

32.  Hoiv  can  the  foreknowledge  of  God  be  reconciled  with  the  "^ 
freedom  of  moral  agents  in  their  acts  ? 

The  difiiculty  here  presented  is  of  this  natm'e.  God's  foreknowl- 
edge is  certain  ;  the  event,  therefore,  must  be  certainly  future  ; 
iTcertamly  Tuture,  how  can  the  agent  be  free  in  enacting  it. 

In  order  to  avoid  this  difficulty  some  theologians,  on  the  one 
hand,  have  denied  the  reality  of  man's  moral  freedom,  while 
others,  on  the  other  hand,  have  maintained  that,  God's  knowl- 
edge being  free,  he  voluntarily  abstains  from  knowing  what  his 
creatures  endowed  with  free  agency  will  do. 

We  remark — 

1st.  God's  certain  foreknowledge  of  all  future  events  and  man's 
free  agency  are  both  certain  facts,  impregnably  established  by 
independent  evidence.  We  must  believe  both,  whether  we  can 
reconcile  them  or  not. 

2d.  Although  necessity  is  inconsistent  with  liberty,  moral 
certainty  is  not,  as  is  abundantly  shown  in  Chapter  XVIII., 
question  12. 

8 


114  THE  ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

33.  What  is  scientia  media  ? 

This  is  the  technical  designation  of  God's  knowledge  of  future 
contingent  events,  presumed,  by  the  authors  of  this  distinction,  to 
depend  not  upon  the  eternal  purpose  of  God  making  the  event 
certain,  but  upon  the  free  act  of  the  creature  as  foreseen  by  a  spe- 
cial intuition.  It  is  called  scientia  media,  middle  knowledge, 
because  it  is  supposed  to  occupy  a  middle  gi'ound  between  the 
knowledge  of  simple  intelligeiice  and  the  knowledge  of  vision.  It 
differs  from  the  former,  since  its  object  is  not  all  possible  things, 
but  a  special  class  of  things  actually  future.  It  differs  from  the 
latter,  since  its  ground  is  not  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  but  the 
free  action  of  the  creature  as  simply  foreseen. 

34.  By  whom  was  this  distinction  introduced,  and  for  what 
purpose  ? 

By  the  Jesuit  doctors,  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  how  God 
might  certainly  foreknow  what  his  free  creatures  would  do  in  the 
absence  of  any  sovereign  foreordination  on  his  part,  determining 
their  action.  Thus  making  his  foreordination  of  men  to  happi- 
ness or  misery  to  depend  upon  his  foreknowledge  of  their  faith 
and  obedience,  and  denying  that  his  foreknowledge  depends  upon 
his  sovereign  foreordination. 

35.  W7iat  are  the  arguments  against  the  validity  of  this  dis- 
tinction ? 

1st.  The  arguments  upon  which  it  is  based  are  untenable. 
Its  advocates  plead,  (1.)  Scripture. — 1  Sam.  xxiii.,  9-12  ;  Matt. 
xi.,  22,  23.  (2.)  That  this  distinction  is  obviously  necessary,  in 
order  to  render  the  mode  of  the  divine  foreknowledge  consistent 
with  man's  free  agency. 

To  the  first  argument  we  answer,  that  the  events  mentioned 
in  the  above-cited  passages  of  Scripture  ivere  not  future.  They 
simply  teach  that  God,  knowing  all  causes,  free  and  necessary, 
knows  how  they  would  act  under  any  proposed  condition.  Even 
we  know  that  if  we  add  fire  to  powder  an  explosion  would  ensue. 
This  comes  under  the  first  class  we  cited  above,  (question  29,)  or 
the  knowledge  of  all  possible  things.  To  the  second  argument 
we  answer,  that  the  certain  foreknowledge  of  God  inyolvcs  the 
certainty  of  the  future  free  act  of  his  creature  as  much  as  his  fore- 


INFINITE    INTELLIGENCE.  115 

ordination  does  ;  and  that  the  sovereign  foreordination  of  God, 
with  respect  to  the  free  acts  of  men,  only  makes  them  certainly 
future,  and  does  not  in  the  least  provide  for  causing  those  acts 
in  any  other  way  than  by  the  free  will  of  the  creature  himself 
acting  freely. 

2d.  This  middle  knowledge  is  unnecessary,  because  all  possible 
objects  of  knowledge,  all  possible  things,  and  all  things  actually 
to  he,  have  already  been  embraced  under  the  two  classes  already 
cited,  (questions  29,  30.) 

3d.  If  God  certainly  foreknows  any  future  event,  then  it  must 
be  certainly  future,  and  he  must  have  foreknown  it  to  be  certainly 
future,  either  because  it  was  antecedently  certain,  or  because  his 
foreknowing  it  made  it  certain.  If  his  foreknowing  it  made  it 
certain,  then  his  foreknowledge  involves  foreordination.  If  it 
was  antecedently  certain,  then  we  ask,  what  could  have  made  it 
certain,  except  what  wc  affirm,  the  decree  of  God,  either  to  cause 
it  himself  immediately,  or  to  cause  it  through  some  necessary 
second  cause,  or  that  some  free  agent  should  cause  it  freely  ? 
We  can  only  choose  between  the  foreordination  of  God  and  a 
blind  fate. 

4th.  This  view  makes  the  knowledge  of  God  to  depend  upon 
the  acts  of  his  creatures  without  himself  This  is  both  absurd 
and  impious,  if  God  is  infinite,  eternal,  and  absolute. 

5th.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  God  does  foreordain  as  well  as 
foreknow  the  free  acts  of  men. — Isa.  x.,  5-15;  Acts  ii.,23;  iv.,  27, 28. 

36.  How  does  wisdom  differ  from  knowledge,  and  wherein  does 
the  wisdom  of  God  consist  ? 

Knowledge  is  a  simple  act  of  the  understanding,  apprehend- 
ing that  a  thing  is,  and  comprehending  its  nature  and  relations, 
or  hoio  it  is. 

Wisdom  presupposes  knowledge,  and  is  the  practical  use  which 
the  understanding,  determined  by  the  will,  makes  of  the  material 
of  knowledge.  God's  wisdom  is  infinite  and  eternal.  It  is  con- 
ceived  of  by  us  as  selecting  the  highest  possible  end,  the  mani- 
festation of  his  own  glory,  and  then  in  selecting  and  directing  in 
every  department  of  his  operations  the  best  possible  means  to 
secure  that  end.  This  wisdom  is  gloriously  manifested  to  us  in 
the  great  theaters  of  creation,  providence,  and  grace. 


116  THE    ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

THE   INFINITE    POWER   OF    GOD. 

37.  What  is  meant  by  the  omnipotence  of  God  ? 

Power  is  that  efficiency  which,  by  an  essential  law  of  thought, 
we  recognize  as  inherent  in  a  cause  in  relation  to  its  eftect.  God 
is  the  uncaused  first  cause,  and  the  causal  efficiency  of  his  will  is 
absolutely  limitless. 

38.  In  tohat  sense  have  theologians  admitted  that  the  power 
of  God  is  limited  ? 

1st.  By  his  own  infinitely  perfect  nature.  He  can  not  act 
either  unwisely  or  unjustly. 

2d.  By  the  nature  of  things.  He  can  not  work  an  essential 
contradiction. 

We  regard  this  language  as  inaccurate.  For  with  regard  to 
the  first  limit,  his  own  nature,  his  power,  resides  in  his  will,  and 
he  certainly  can  do  whatsoever  he  wills  to  do.  It  would  be  more 
accurate,  therefore,  to  say  that  his  infinitely  wise  and  righteous 
will  always  chooses  wisely  and  righteously,  than  to  say  that  wis- 
dom or  righteousness  limits  his  power. 

With  regard  to  the  second  limit.  Contradictions  are  not 
things.  To  be  and  not  to  be  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same 
sense  is  a  mere  logical  quibble. 

39.  Hoiv  can  absolute  omnipotence  be  proved  to  belong  to 
God? 

1st.  It  is  asserted  by  Scripture. — Jer.  xxxii.,  17  ;  Matt,  xix., 
26  ;  Luke  i.,  37  ;  Kev.  xix.,  6. 

2d.  It  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  God  as  an 
infinite  being. 

3cl.  Although  we  have  seen  but  part  of  his  ivays,  (Job  xxvi., 
14),  yet  our  constantly  extending  experience  is  ever  revealing  to 
us  new  and  more  astonishing  evidences  of  his  power,  which  always 
indicate  an  inexhaustible  reserve. 

THE    WILL    OF   GOD. 

40.  What  is  meant  by  the  ivill  of  God  ? 

Tlic  will  of  God  is  the  infinitely  and  eternally  wise,  powerful, 
and  righteous  essence  of  God  willing.     In  our  conception  it  is 


INFINITE   WILL.  117 

that  attribute  of  the  Deity  to  which  we  refer  his  purposes  and 
decrees  as  their  principle. 

41.  In  lohat  sense  is  the  will  of  God  said  to  he  free,  and  in 
what  sense  necessary  ? 

The  will  of  God  is  the  wise,  powerful,  and  righteous  essence 
of  God  willing.  His  will,  therefore,  in  every  act  is  certainly  and 
yet  most  freely  both  wise  and  righteous.  The  liberty  of  indiffer- 
ence is  evidently  foreign  to  his  nature,  because  the  perfection  of 
wisdom  is  to  choose  the  most  wisely,  and  the  perfection  of  right- 
eousness is  to  choose  the  most  righteously. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  will  of  God  is  from  eternity  absolutely 
independent  of  all  his  creatures  and  all  their  actions. 

42.  What  is  intended  by  the  distinction  between  the  decretive 
and  the  preceptive  will  of  God  ? 

The  decretive  will  of  God  is  God  efficaciously  purposing  the 
certain  futurition  of  events.  The  preceptive  will  of  God  is  God, 
as  moral  governor,  commanding  his  moral  creatures  to  do  that 
which  he  sees  it  right  and  wise  that  they  in  their  circumstances 
should  do. 

These  are  not  inconsistent.  What  he  wills  as  our  duty  may 
very  consistently  be  diflferent  from  what  he  wills  as  his  purpose. 
What  it  is  right  for  him  to  permit  may  be  wrong  for  him  to  ap- 
prove, or  for  us  to  do. 

43.  What  is  meant  by  the  distinction  between  the  secret  and 
revealed  will  of  God  ? 

The  secret  will  of  God  is  his  decretive  will,  called  secret,  be- 
cause although  it  is  sometimes  revealed  to  man  in  the  prophecies 
and  promises  of  the  Bible,  yet  it  is  for  the  most  part  hidden  in 
God. 

The  revealed  will  of  God  is  his  perceptive  will,  which  is 
always  clearly  set  forth  as  the  rule  of  our  duty. — Dcut.  xxix.,  29. 

44.  I71  what  sense  do  the  Arminians  maintain  the  distinction 
hetioecn  the  antecedent  and  consequent  will  of  God,  and  lohat  are 
the  objections  to  their  vieio  of  the  subject  ? 

This  is  a  distinction  invented  by  the  schoolmen,  and  adopted 


118  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

by  the  Armlnians,  for  reconciling  the  will  of  God  with  their 
theory  of  the  free  agency  of  man. 

They  call  that  an  antecedent  act  of  God's  will  which  precedes 
the  action  of  the  creature,  e.  cj.,  before  Adam  sinned  God  willed 
him  to  be  happy.  They  call  that  a  consequent  act  of  God's  will 
which  followed  the  act  of  the  creature,  and  is  consequent  upon 
that  act,  c.  (/.,  after  Adam  sinned  God  willed  him  to  suffer  the 
penalty  due  to  his  sin. 

It  is  very  evident  that  this  distinction  does  not  truly  repre- 
sent the  nature  of  God's  will,  and  its  relation  to  the  acts  of  his 
creatures  :  first,  God  is  eternal,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no 
distinction  in  his  acts  as  to  time  ;  second,  God  is  eternally  om- 
niscient and  omnipotent.  If  he  wills  anything,  therefore,  he 
must  from  the  beginning  will  the  means  to  accomplish  it,  and 
thus  secure  the  attainment  of  the  end  willed.  Otherwise  God 
must  have,  at  the  same  time,  two  inconsistent  wills  with  regard 
to  the  same  object.  The  truth  is  that  God,  eternally  and  un- 
changeably, by  one  comprehensive  act  of  will,  willed  all  that 
happened  to  Adam  from  beginning  to  end  in  the  precise  order 
and  succession  in  which  each  event  occurred ;  third,  God  is  in- 
finitely independent.  It  is  degrading  to  God  to  conceive  of  him 
as  first  willing  that  which  he  has  no  power  to  effect,  and  then 
changing  his  will  consequently  to  the  independent  acts  of  his 
creatures. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  because  of  the  natural  limits  of  our 
capacities  we  necessarily  conceive  of  the  several  intentions  of 
God's  one,  eternal,  indivisible  purpose,  as  sustaining  a  certain 
logical,  (not  temporal,)  relation  to  each  other  as  principle  and 
consequent.  Thus  we  conceive  of  God's  first  (in  logical  order) 
decreeing  to  create  man,  then  to  permit  him  to  fall,  then  to  elect 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  then  to  provide  a  redemption. — 
Turrettin. 

45.  In  ivhat  sense  do  Arminians  hold  the  distinction  hetioeen 
the  absolute  and  conditional  will  of  God,  and  what  are  the  objec- 
tions to  that  view  ? 

In  their  view  that  is  the  absolute  will  of  God  which  is  sus- 
pended upon  no  condition  without  himself,  e.  g.,  his  decree  to 
create  man.     That  is  the  conditional  will  of  God  which  is  sua- 


INFINITE   WILL.  119 

2)ended  upon  a  condition,  e.  g.,  his  decree  to  save  those  that  be- 
lieve, i.  e.,  on  condition  of  their  faith. 

It  is  evident  that  this  view  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the 
nature  of  Grod  as  an  eternal,  self-existent,  independent  being,  in- 
finite in  all  his  perfections.  It  degrades  him  to  the  jDOsition  of 
being  simply  a  coordinate  part  of  the  creation,  mutually  limiting 
and  being  limited  by  the  creatm-e. 

The  mistake  results  from  detaching  a  fragment  of  God's  will 
from  the  one  whole,  all-comprehensive  eternal  purpose.  It  is 
evident  that,  when  properly  viewed  as  eternal  and  one,  God's 
purpose  must  comprehend  all  conditions,  as  well  as  their  conse- 
quents, God's  will  is  suspended  upon  no  condition,  but  he  eter- 
nally wills  the  event  as  suspended  upon  its  condition,  and  its 
condition  as  determining  the  event. 

It  is  admitted  by  all  that  God's  preceptive  will,  as  expressed 
in  commands,  promises,  and  threatenings,  is  often  suspended  upon 
condition.  If  we  believe  we  shall  certainly  be  saved.  This  is  the 
relation  which  God  has  immutably  established  between  faith  as 
the  condition,  and  salvation  as  the  consequent,  i.  e.,  faith  is  the 
condition  of  salvation.  But  this  is  something  very  different  from 
saying  that  the  faith  of  Paul  was  the  condition  of  God's  eternal 
pm'pose  to  save  him,  because  the  same  purpose  determined  the 
faith  as  the  condition,  and  the  salvation  as  its  consequent.  See 
further.  Chapter  IX.,  on  the  decrees. 

46,  In  what  sense  is  the  will  of  God  said  to  be  eternal  ? 

It  is  one  eternal,  unsuccessive,  all-comprehensive  act,  absolutely 
determining  either  to  effect  or  to  permit  all  things,  in  all  of  their 
relations,  conditions,  and  successions,  which  ever  were,  are,  or 
ever  will  be. 

47.  In  lohat  sense  may  the  luill  of  God  he  said  to  he  the  ride 
of  righteousness  ? 

It  is  evident  that  in  the  highest  sense,  with  respect  to  God 
willing,  his  mere  will  can  not  be  regarded  as  the  ultimate  ground 
of  all  righteousness,  any  more  than  it  can  be  as  the  ultimate 
ground  of  all  wisdom.  Because,  in  that  case,  it  would  follow, 
first,  that  there  would  be  no  essential  difference  between  right 
and  wrong  in  themselves,  but  only  a  difference  arbitrarily  consti- 


120  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

tuted  by  Grod  himself ;  and,  second,  that  it  would  be  senseless 
to  ascribe  righteousness  to  God,  for  then  that  would  be  merely  to 
say  that  he  wills  as  he  wills.  The  truth  is,  that  his  will  acts  as 
his  infinitely  righteous  wisdom  sees  to  be  right. 

On  the  other  hand,  God's  revealed  will  is  to  us  the  absolute 
and  ultimate  rule  of  righteousness,  alike  when  he  commands 
things  in  themselves  indifferent,  and  thus  makes  them  right,  as 
when  he  commands  things  in  themselves  essentially  right,  be- 
cause they  are  right. 

THE   INFINITE    JUSTICE   OF    GOD. 

48.  What  is  meant  by  the  distinctions  absolute  and  relative, 
rectoral,  distributive,  and  punitive  or  vindictive  justice  of  God  ? 

The  absolute  justice  of  God  is  the  infinite  moral  perfection  or 
universal  righteousness  of  his  own  being. 

The  relative  justice  of  God  is  his  infinitely  righteous  nature, 
viewed  as  exercised  in  his  relation  to  his  moral  creatures,  as  their 
moral  governor. 

This  last  is  called  rectoral,  when  viewed  as  exercised  gen- 
erally in  administering  the  affairs  of  his  universal  government,  in 
■  providing  for  and  governing  his  creatures  and  their  actions.  It 
is  called  distributive,  when  viewed  as  exercised  in  giving  unto 
each  creature  his  exact  j)roportionate  due  of  rewards  or  punish- 
ment. It  is  called  punitive  or  vindictive,  when  viewed  as  de- 
manding and  inflicting  the  adequate  and  proportionate  punish- 
ment of  all  sin,  because  of  its  intrinsic  ill  desert. 

49.  What  are  the  different  opiniojis  as  to  the  7iature  of  tj^e 
punitive  justice  of  God,  i.  e.,  tvhat  are  the  different  reasons  as- 
signed ivhy  God  p)unishes  sin  ? 

The  Socinians  deny  the  punitive  justice  of  God  altogether, 
and  maintain  that  he  punishes  sin  simply  for  the  good  of  the  in- 
dividual sinner,  and  of  society,  only  so  far  as  it  may  be  interested 
in  his  restraint  or  improvement.  The  new  school  tlieologians, 
maintainiiig  the  governmental  theory  of  the  Atonement,  hold 
that  God  ptinishcs  sin  not  because  of  a  changeless  principle  in 
•himself  dcmandmg  its  punishment,  but  for  the  good  of  the  uni- 
yerse,  on  the  basis  of  great  and  changeless  principles  of  govern- 


INFINITE   JUSTICE.  121 

mental  policy.  Thus  resolving  justice  into  a  form  of  general 
benevolence. — See  Beman  on  the  Atonement. 

Some  hold  that  the  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin  is  only 
hypothetical,  i.  e.,  results  only  from  the  eternal  decree  of  Grod. 

The  true  view  is  that  God  is  immutably  determined  by  his 
own  eternal  and  essential  righteousness  to  visit  every  sin  with  a 
proportionate  punishment. 

50.  How  may  it  he  argued  from  the  independence  and  absolute 
self-sufficiency  of  God,  that  punitive  justice  is  an  essential  attri- 
bute of  his  nature  ? 

It  is  inconsistent  with  these  essential  attributes  to  conceive 
of  God  as  obliged  to  any  course  of  action  by  the  external  exigen- 
cies of  his  creation.  Both  the  motive  and  the  end  of  his  action 
must  be  in  himself.  If  he  punishes  sin  because  determined  so  to 
do  by  the  principles  of  his  own  nature,  then  he  acts  indepen- 
dently. But  if  he  resorts  to  this  merely  as  the  necessary  means 
of  restraining  and  governing  his  creatures,  then  their  actions 
control  his. 

51.  What  argument  in  support  of  this  doctrine  may  be  drawn 
from  the  instinctive  sense  of  justice  lohich  is  essentially  inherent 
in  our  nature  ? 

Man,  especially  as  to  his  moral  nature,  was  created  in  the 
image  of  God,  We  necessarily  refer  to  him  in  an  infinite  degree 
our  highest  ideal  of  moral  excellence.  Conscience,  as  the  organ 
of  the  moral  law  in  our  hearts,  echoes  the  voice,  and  discovers 
to  us  the  moral  character  of  the  great  Lawgiver, 

Now,  the  universal  testimony  of  the  human  conscience  is,  that 
ill  desert  is  of  the  essence  of  sin  :  that,  irrespective  of  any  gen- 
eral consequences  to  society,  the  malefactor  deserves  punishment ; 
and  that  no  amount  of  public  benefit  can  justify  the  judicial  in- 
jury of  the  innocent.  This  is  implied  in  all  human  laws,  in  all 
superstitious  fears,  and  in  the  penances  and  expiatory  sacrifices 
which,  in  one  form  or  another,  have  constituted  a  prominent  ele- 
ment in  all  religions. 

52.  Hoio  may  this  principle  be  inferred  from  God's  love  of 
holiness  and  hatred  of  sin  ? 


122  THE   ATTRIBUTES  OF   GOD. 

If  the  reason  for  God's  punisliing  sin  was  founded  simply  in 
his  own  arbitrary  will,  then  he  could  not  be  said  to  hate  sin,  but 
only  to  love  his  own  will.  Or  if  his  reason  for  punishing  sin 
rested  solely  upon  governmental  considerations,  then  he  could  not 
be  strictly  said  to  hate  sin,  but  only  its  consequences. 

But  both  our  consciences  and  Scripture  teach  positively  that 
God  does  hate  sin  and  love  holiness  for  their  own  sakes. — Hab. 
i.,  13  ;  Ps.  v.,  4,  5  ;  xlv.,  6,  7  ;  cxlv.,  17  ;  Prov.  xi.,  20  ;  Dent, 
iv.,  24. 

To  deny  this  doctrine  is  to  deny  the  very  essence  of  moral 
goodness,  to  resolve  righteousness  into  prudence,  and  right  into 
advantage. 

53.  Hoiu  may  it  be  proved  from  what  the  Scriptures  say  of 
the  death  of  Clirist  ? 

The  Scriptures  teach  that  our  sins  were  laid  upon  Christ ; 
that  he  was  made  sin  ;  that  he  suffered  the  just  for  the  unjust 
that  God  might  justly  justify  the  unjust. — Isa.  liii.,  5-11  ;  Kom. 
iii.,  24-26  ;  Gal.  iii.,  13,  14  ;  1  Pet.  iii.,  18  ;  also  see  Chapter 
XXII.  But  if  the  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin  arises 
simply  from  the  arbitrary  will  of  God,  then  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
involved  no  punishment  of  sin  at  all,  but  a  mere  gratification  of 
God's  arbitrary  will.  Or  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  derives  its 
necessity  purely  from  govermental  considerations,  i.  e.,  from  the 
necessity  of  restraining  sinners  and  preventing  the  spread  of  sin 
by  manifesting  to  the  universe  a  stupendous  evidence  that  sin 
shall  be  punished,  what  would  this  be  but  to  make  the  awful 
death  of  Christ  a  well-intentioned  fiction.  For  if  Christ  died, 
not  because  all  sin  intrinsically  deserves  punishment,  not  because 
there  is  an  immutable  principle  in  God  demanding  its  punish- 
ishment,  but  only  that  further  sin  may  be  prevented,  then  sin 
was  not  punished.  Yet  the  Scriptures  declare  that  it  was.  But 
if  our  doctrine  be  true,  that  God  is  immutably  determined  to 
punish  all  sin,  then  we  can  understand  why,  without  the  shed- 
ding of  blood,  there  can  be  no  remission,  and  a  sufficient  reason 
is  given  for  the  awful  sacrifice  of  the  incarnate  Word. 

54.  How  may  it  be  proved  from  the  law  of  God  ? 

The  penalty  is  as  essential  an  element  of  the  law  as  the  pre- 


INFINITE   GOODNESS.  123 

cept,  and  together  they  constitute  one  inseparable  and  perfect 
rule  of  moral  rectitude.  The  language  of  the  law  is,  "  the  soul 
that  sinneth  it  shall  die."  Now,  if  this  rule  be  based  upon  the 
mere  will  of  God,  then  it  is  no  revelation  of  his  moral  nature,  and 
no  display  of  his  essential  righteousness.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  based  on  mere  governmental  considerations  of  general  advan- 
tage, then  there  remains  no  distinction  between  right  and  wrong. 
We  hold,  however,  that  the  one  all-perfect  law  exhibits  at  once 
what  God's  infinitely  perfect  righteousness  determines  him  to 
demand  of  his  moral  creatures,  and  in  case  of  disobedience  to 
inflict. 

THE  INFINITE   GOODNESS  OF  GOD. 

55.  What  distinctions  are  signified  hy  the  terms  benevolence, 
complacency,  mercy,  and  grace  ? 

The  infinite  goodness  of  God  is  a  glorious  perfection  which 
preeminently  characterizes  his  nature,  and  which  he,  in  an  in- 
finitely wise,  righteous,  and  sovereign  manner,  exercises  towards 
his  creatm'es  in  various  modes  according  to  their  relations  and 
conditions. 

Benevolence  is  the  goodness  of  God  viewed  generically.  It 
embraces  all  his  creatures,  except  the  judicially  condemned  on 
account  of  sin,  and  provides  for  their  welfare. 

The  love  of  complacency  is  that  approving  affection  with 
which  God  regards  his  own  infinite  perfections,  and  every  image 
and  reflection  of  them  in  his  creatures,  especially  in  the  sanctified 
subjects  of  the  new  creation. 

God's  mercy,  of  which  the  more  passive  forms  are  pity  and 
compassion,  is  the  divine  goodness  exercised  with  respect  to  the 
miseries  of  his  creatures,  feeling  for  them,  and  making  provision 
for  their  relief,  and  in  the  case  of  impenitent  sinners,  leading  to 
long-sufiering  j^a^iewce. 

The  grace  of  God  is  his  goodness  seeking  to  communicate  his 
favors,  and,  above  all,  the  fellowship  of  his  own  life  and  blessed- 
ness to  his  moral  creatures,  who,  as  creatures,  must  be  destitute 
of  all  merit,  and  preeminently  his  electing  love,  securing  at  infinite 
cost  the  blessedness  of  its  objects,  who,  as  sinful  creatures,  were 
positively  ill  deserving. 


124  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

5Q.  What  are  the  sources  of  our  knowledge  of  the  fact  that 
God  is  benevolent  ? 

Ist.  Keason.  Benevolence  is  an  essential  element  of  moral 
perfection.  God  is  infinitely  perfect,  and  therefore  infinitely 
benevolent. 

2d.  Experience  and  observation.  The  wisdom  of  God  in  de- 
signing, and  the  power  of  God  in  executing,  in  the  several  spheres 
of  creation,  providence,  and  revealed  religion,  have  evidently  been 
constantly  determined  by  benevolent  intentions. 

3d.  The  direct  assertions  of  Scripture. — Ps.  clxv.,  8,  9  ;  1 
John  iv.,  8. 

57.  Hoiv  may  it  he  proved  that  God  is  gracious  and  willing 
to  forgive  sin  ? 

Neither  reason  nor  conscience  can  ever  raise  a  presumption  on 
this  subject.  It  is  the  evident  duty  of  fellow-creatures  mutually  to 
forgive  injuries,  but  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  forgiving  sin  as  sin. 

It  appears  plain  that  there  can  be  no  moral  principle  making 
it  essential  for  a  sovereign  ruler  to  forgive  sin  as  transgression  of 
law.  All  that  reason  or  conscience  can  assure  us  of  in  that  regard 
is,  that  sin  can  not  be  forgiven  without  an  atonement.  The  gra- 
cious afiection  which  should  prompt  such  a  ruler  to  provide  an 
atonement,  must,  from  its  essential  nature,  be  perfectly  free  and 
sovereign,  and  therefore  it  can  be  known  only  so  far  as  it  is  gra- 
ciously revealed.  The  gospel  is,  therefore,  good  news  confirmed  by 
signs  and  wonders. — Ex.  xxxiv.,  6,  7  ;  Eph.  i.,  7-9. 

58.  What  are  the  different  theories  or  assumptions  on  ivhich 
it  has  been  attempted  to  reconcile  the  existence  of  sin  with  the 
goodness  of  God  ? 

1st.  It  has  been  argued  by  some  that  free  agency  is  essential 
to  a  moral  system,  and  that  absolute  independence  of  will  is 
essential  to  free  agency.  That  to  control  the  wills  of  free  agents 
is  no  more  an  object  of  poioer  than  the  working  of  contradictions; 
and  consequently  God,  although  omnipotent,  could  not  prevent 
sin  in  a  moral  system  without  violating  its  nature. — See  Dr.  N. 
W.  Taylor's  Concio  ad  Clerum,  1828. 

2d.  Others  have  argued  that  sin  was  permitted  by  God  in  in- 


INFINITE   GOODNESS.  125 

finite  wisdom  as  the  necessary  means  to  the  largest  possible  meas- 
ure of  happiness  in  the  universe  as  a  whole. 

On  both  of  these  we  remark — 

1st.  That  the  first  theory  above  cited  is  founded  on  a  false 
view  of  the  conditions  of  human  liberty  and  responsibility,  (see 
below,  Chapter  XVIII.)  ;  and,  further,  that  it  grossly  limits  the 
power  of  Grod  by  representing  him  as  desiring  and  attempting 
what  he  can  not  efiect,  and  that  it  makes  him  dependent  uj^on  his 
creatures. 

2d.  With  reference  to  the  second  theory  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  God's  own  glory,  and  not  the  greatest  good  of  the 
universe,  is  the  great  end  of  God  in  creation  and  providence. 

3d.  The  permission  of  sin,  in  its  relation  both  to  the  righteous- 
ness and  goodness  of  God,  is  an  insolvable  mystery,  and  all  at- 
tempts to  solve  it  only  darken  counsel  with  words  without  knowl- 
edge. It  is,  however,  the  privilege  of  our  faith  to  know,  though 
not  of  our  philosophy  to  comprehend,  that  it  is  assuredly  a  most 
wise,  righteous,  and  merciful  permission  ;  and  that  it  shall  re- 
dound to  the  glory  of  God  and  to  the  good  of  his  chosen. 

59.  How  can  the  attributes  of  goodness  and  justice  he  shown 
to  be  consistent  ? 

Goodness  and  justice  are  the  several  aspects  of  one  un- 
changeable, infinitely  wise,  and  sovereign  moral  perfection.  God 
is  not  sometimes  merciful  and  sometimes  just,  nor  so  far  merciful 
and  so  far  just,  but  he  is  eternally  infinitely  merciful  and  just. 
Eelatively  to  the  creature  this  infinite  perfection  of  nature  pre- 
sents different  aspects,  as  is  determined  by  the  judgment  which 
infinite  wisdom  delivers  in  each  individual  case. 

Even  in  our  experience  these  attributes  of  our  moral  nature 
are  found  not  to  be  inconsistent  in  principle,  though  our  want 
both  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  a  sense  of  our  own  unworthiness, 
and  a  mere  physical  sympathy,  often  sadly  distract  our  judgments 
as  well  as  our  hearts  in  adjusting  these  principles  to  the  individual 
cases  of  life. 

god's  infinite  truth. 

60.  What  is  truth  considered  as  a  divine  attribute  ? 

The  truth  of  God  in  its  widest  sense  is  a  perfection  which 


126  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

qualifies  all  his  intellectual  and  moral  attributes.  His  knowledge 
is  infinitely  true  in  relation  to  its  objects,  and  his  wisdom  un- 
biassed either  by  prejudice  or  passion.  His  justice  and  his  good- 
ness in  all  their  exercises  are  infinitely  true  to  the  perfect  standard 
of  his  own  nature.  In  all  outward  manifestations  of  his  perfec- 
tions to  his  creatures,  Grod  is  always  true  to  his  nature — always 
self-consistently  divine.  This  attribute  in  its  more  special  sense 
qualifies  all  God's  intercourse  with  his  rational  creatures.  He  is 
true  to  us  as  well  as  to  himself ;  and  thus  is  laid  the  foundation 
of  all  faith,  and  therefore  of  all  knowledge.  It  is  the  foundation 
of  all  confidence,  first,  in  our  senses  ;  second,  in  our  intellect 
and  conscience  ;  third,  in  any  authenticated,  supernatural  reve- 
lation. 

The  two  forms  in  which  this  perfection  is  exercised  in  relation 
to  us  are,  first,  his  entire  truth  in  all  his  communications;  second, 
his  perfect  sincerity  in  undertaking  and  faithfulness  in  discharg- 
ing all  his  engagements. 

61.  How  can  the  truth  of  God  he  reconciled  with  the  apparent 
non-performance  of  some  of  his  threatenings  ? 

The  promises  and  threatenings  of  Grod  are  sometimes  absolute, 
when  they  are  always  infallibly  fulfilled  in  the  precise  sense  in 
which  he  intended  them.  They  are  often  also  conditioned,  made 
to  depend  upon  the  obedience  or  repentance  of  the  creature. — 
Jonah  iii.,  4,  10  ;  Jer.  xviii.,  7,  8.  This  condition  may  be  either 
expressed  or  implied,  because  the  individual  case  is  understood  to 
be,  of  course,  governed  by  the  general  principle  that  genuine 
repentance  and  faith  delivers  from  every  threatening  and  secures 
every  promise. 

62.  How  can  the  invitations  and  exhortations  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, addressed  to  those  ivhoin  God  does  not  propose  to  save,  he 
reconciled  with  his  sincerity  ? 

See  above,  (question  42,)  the  distinction  between  God's  pre- 
ceptive and  his  decretive  will.  His  invitations  and  exhortations 
are  addressed  to  all  men  in  good  faith :  first,  because  it  is  every 
man's  duty  to  repent  and  believe,  and  God's  preceptive  will  that 
that  every  man  should  ;  second,  because  nothing  ever  prevents 
the  obedience  of  any  sinner,  except  his  own  unwillingness;  third, 


INFINITE   SOVEREIGNTY.  127 

because  in  every  case  in  which  the  condition  is  fulfilled  the  pro- 
mise imjDlied  will  be  performed  ;  fourth,  God  never  has  promised 
to  enable  every  man  to  believe  ;  fifth,  these  invitations  and  ex- 
hortations are  not  addressed  to  the  reprobate  as  such,  but  to  all 
sinners  as  such,  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  saving  thereby  the  elect. 

THE   INFINITE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    GOD. 

63.  What  is  meant  by  the  sovei^eignty  of  God  ? 

His  absolute  right  to  govern  and  dispose  of  all  his  creatures, 
simply  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure. 

64.  Prove  that  this  right  is  asserted  in  Scripture. 

Dan.  iv.,  25,  35  ;  Kev,  iv.,  11 ;  1  Tim.  vi.,  15 ;  Rom.  ix., 
15-23. 

65.  On  luhat  does  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  rest  ? 

1st.  His  infinite  superiority  in  being  and  in  all  his  perfections 
to  any  and  to  all  his  creatures. 

2d.  As  creatures  they  were  created  out  of  nothing,  and  are 
now  sustained  in  being  by  his  power,  for  his  own  glory  and  ac- 
cording to  his  own  good  pleasure. — Rom.  xi.,  36. 

3d.  His  infinite  benefits  to  us,  and  our  dependence  upon  and 
blessedness  in  him,  are  reasons  why  we  should  not  only  recognize, 
but  rejoice,  in  this  glorious  truth.  The  Lord  reigneth,  let  the 
earth  rejoice. 

QQ.  Is  there  any  sense  in  which  there  are  limits  to  the  sov- 
ereignty of  God  ? 

The  sovereignty  of  Grod,  viewed  abstractly  as  one  attribute 
among  many,  must  of  course  be  conceived  of  as  qualified  by  all 
the  rest.  It  can  not  be  otherwise  than  an  infinitely  wise,  right- 
eous, and  merciful  sovereignty. 

But  God,  viewed  concretely  as  an  infinite  sovereign,  is  abso- 
lutely unlimited  by  any  thing  without  himself  "  He  doeth 
according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven,  and  among  the  in- 
habitants of  the  earth." — Dan.  iv.,  35. 

THE   INFINITE    HOLINESS   OF   GOD. 

67.   What  is  meant  by  the  holiness  of  God  ? 

The  holiness  of  God  is  not  to  be  conceived  of  as  one  attribute 


128  THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD. 

among  others  ;  it  is  rather  a  general  term  representing  the  con- 
ception of  his  consummate  perfection  and  total  glory.  It  is  his 
infinite  moral  perfection  crowning  his  infinite  intelligence  and 
power.  There  is  a  glory  of  each  attribute,  viewed  abstractly,  and 
a  glory  of  the  whole  together.  The  intellectual  nature  is  the 
essential  basis  of  the  moral.  Infinite  moral  perfection  is  the  crown 
of  the  Godhead.     Holiness  is  the  total  glory  thus  crowned. 

Holiness  in  the  Creator  is  the  total  perfection  of  an  infinitely 
righteous  intelligence.  Holiness  in  the  creature  is  not  mere  moral 
perfection,  but  perfection  of  the  created  nature  of  moral  agents 
after  their  kind,  in  spiritual  union  and  fellowship  with  the  in- 
finite Creator. — 1  John  i.,  3. 

The  word  holiness,  as  applied  to  God  in  Scripture,  represents, 
first,  moral  purity. — Lev.  xi.,  44  ;  Ps.  cxlv.,  17  ;  second,  his  tran- 
scendently  august  and  venerable  majesty. — Isa.  vi.,  3  ;  Ps.  xxii., 
3  ;  Eev.  iv.,  8. 

To  "  sanctify  the  Lord,"  i.  e.,  to  make  him  holy,  is  to  declare 
and  adore  his  holiness  by  venerating  his  august  majesty  wherever 
and  whereinsoever  his  person  or  character  is  represented. — Isa. 
viii.,  13  ;  xxix.,  23  ;  Exek.  xxxviii.,  23  ;  Matt,  vi.,  9  ;  1  Pet. 
iii.,  15. 


C  HAP  T  E  R    VIII. 


THE     HOLY     TRINITY. 


1.  What  is  the  etymology  and  meaning  of  the  word  Trinity, 
and  ivhen  was  it  introduced  into  the  language  of  the  church  ? 

This  word,  in  its  Latin  form,  Trinitas,  is  deiived  from  the 
adjective  trinus,  threefold,  or  three  in  one,  and  it  thus  exactly 
expresses  the  divine  mystery  of  three  persons  in  the  unity  of  one 
Godhead. 

It  is  said  to  have  taken  its  place  in  the  language  of  Christian 
theology,  for  the  first  time,  in  an  apologetic  work  of  Theophylus, 
bishop  of  Antioch,  in  Syria,  from  A.  D.  168  to  A.  D.  183. — See 
Mosheim's  Eccle.  Hist.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  121,  Note  7. 

2.  What  is  the  theological  meaning  of  the  term  substantia 
{substance),  and  what  change  has  occurred,  in  its  usage  ? 

Substantia,  as  now  used,  is  equivalent  to  essence,  independent 
being!  Thus,  in  the  G-odhead,  the  three  persons  are  the  same  in 
in  substance,  i.  e.,  of  one  and  the  same  indivisible,  numeiical 
essence. 

The  word  was  at  first  used  by  one  party  in  the  church  as 
equivalent  to  subsistentia  (subsistence),  or  mode  of  existence. 
In  which  sense,  while  there  is  but  one  essence,  there  are  three 
substantias  or  persons,  in  the  Godhead. — See  TuiTcttin,  Tom.  I., 
locus  iii.,  ques.  23. 

3.  What  is  the  theological  meaning  of  the  loord  subsistentia 
(subsistence)  ? 

It  is  used  to  signify  that  mode  of  existence  which  distin- 
guishes one  individual  thing  from  every  other  individual  things 
one  person  from  every  other  person.     As  applied  to  the  doctrine 

9 


130  THE    nOLT   TRINITY. 

of  the  Trinity,  subsistence  is  that  mode  of  existence  which  is 
peculiar  to  each  of  the  divine  persons,  and  which  in  each  consti- 
tutes the  one  essence  a  distinct  person. 

4.  What  is  the  New  Testament  sense  of  the  ivord  vnoaraaig, 
(hypostasis)  ? 

This  word,  as  to  its  etymology,  is  precisely  equivalent  to  sub- 
stance ;  it  comes  from  vcpioTTjfit,  "  to  stand  under." 

In  the  New  Testament  it  is  used  five  times — 

1st.  Figuratively,  for  confidence,  or  that  state  of  mind  which 
is  conscious  of  a  firm  foundation,  2  Cor.  ix.,  4  ;  xi.,  17  ;  Heb.  iii., 
14,  which  faith  realizes,  Heb.  xi.,  1. 

2d.  Literally,  for  essential  nature,  Heb.  i.,  3. — See  Sampson's 
Com.  on  Heb. 

5.  In  tvhat  sense  is  this  ivord  used  by  the  ecclesiastical 
umters  ? 

Until  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  this  word,  in  connection 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  was  generally  used  in  its  primary 
sense,  as  equivalent  to  substance.  It  is  used  in  this  sense  in  the 
creed  published  by  the  Council  of  Nice  A.  D.  325,  and  again  in 
the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  in  Illyria,  A.  D.  347.  These 
agreed  in  affirming  that  there  is  but  one  hypostasis  in  the  God- 
head. Some,  however,  at  that  time  understanding  the  word  in 
the  sense  of  person,  its  usage  was  changed  by  general  consent, 
chiefly  through  the  influence  of  Athanasius,  and  ever  since  it  has 
been  established  in  theological  language  in  the  sense  of  person,  in 
contradistinction  to  dvala,  essence.  It  has  been  transferred  into 
the  English  language  in  the  form  of  an  adjective,  to  designate  the 
hypostatical  or  personal  union  of  tAvo  natures  in  the  God  man. 

G.  What  is  essential  to  personality,  and  how  is  the  loord  per- 
son to  he  defined  in  connection  loith  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 

The  Latin  word,  "supposituin,"  signifies  a  distinct  individual 
existence,  e.  g.,  a  particular  tree  or  horse.  A  person  is  "supposi- 
tum  intellectuale,"  a  distinct  individual  existence,  to  Avhich  be- 
longs the  properties  of  reason  and  free  will.  Throughout  the 
entire  range  of  our  experience  and  observation  of  personal  exist- 
-ence  among  creatures,  personality  rests  upon  and  appears  to  be 


DEFINITIONS.  131 

inseparable  from  distinction  of  essence.     Every  distinct  person 
is  a  distinct  soul,  with  or  without  a  body. 

That  distinguishing  mode  of  existence  which  constitutes  the 
one  divine  essence  coordinately  three  separate  persons,  is  of  course 
an  infinite  mystery  which  we  can  not  understand,  and  therefore 
can  not  adequately  define,  and  which  we  can  know  only  so  far  as 
it  is  explicitly  revealed.  All  that  we  know  is,  that  this  distinc- 
tion, which  is  called  personality,  embraces  all  those  incommuni- 
cable properties  which  eternally  belong  to  Father,  Son,  or  Holy 
Ghost  separately,  and  not  to  all  in  common  ;  that  it  lays  the 
foundation  for  their  concurrence  in  counsel,  their  mutual  love  and 
action  one  upon  another,  as  the  Father  s?nding  the  Son,  and  the 
Father  and  Son  sending  the  Spirit,  and  for  use  of  the  personal 
pronouns  I,  thou,  he,  in  the  revelation  which  one  divine  person 
gives  of  himself  and  of  the  others. 

7.  What  is  meant  by  the  terms  ofwovoiov  (of  the  same  suhstance), 
and  bfjiOLovaLov^  (of  similar  substance)  ? 

In  the  first  general  council  of  the  church  which,  consisting  of 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops,  was  called  together  by  the 
Em^peror  Constantino  at  Nice,  in  Bithynia,  A.  D.  325,  there  were 
found  to  be  three  great  parties  representing  difierent  opinions 
concerning  the  Trinity. 

1st.  The  orthodox  party,  who  maintained  the  opinion  now 
held  by  all  Christians,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  is^  as  to  his  divine  na- 
ture, of  the  same  identical  substance  withthe  Father.  These 
insisted  upon  applying  to  him  the  definite  term  djioovaiov^  (ho- 
moousion),  compounded  of  o^og,  same,  and  ovaia,  substance,  to 
teach  the  great  truth  that  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead  are 
one  God,  because  they  are  of  the  same  numerical  essence. 

2d.  The  Arians,  who  maintained"that  the  Son  of  God  is  the 
greatest  of  all  creatures,  more  like  God  than  any  other,  the  only- 
'begotten  son  of  God,  created  before  all  worlds,  through  whom  God 
created  all  other  tilings,  and  in  that  sense  only  divine. 

3d.  The  middle  party,  styled  Semi-Ariansj'wTio  confessed  that 
the  Son  was  not  a  creature,  but  denied  that  he  was  in  the  same       V 
.sense  God  as  the  Father  is.     They  held  that  the  Father  is  the      ^ 
onb[_absolute  self-existent  God  j  yet  that  from  etermty  lie,  by  Lis 
own  free  will,  caus(xl  to  proceed  from  himself  a  divine  person  of 


132  THE   HOLT   TRINITY. 

like  nature  and  properties.  They  denied,  therefore,  that  the  Son 
was  of  the  same  substance  (homoousion)  with  the  Father,  but 
admitted  that  he  was  of  an  essence  truly  similar,  and  derived  from 
the  Father  (homoiousion,  dfioiovatov^  from,  oiioiog^  like,  and  nvaia, 
substance). 

The  opinions  of  the  first,  or  orthodox  party,  prevailed  at  that 
council,  and  have  ever  since  been  represented  by  the  technical 
])hrase,  homoousian. 

For  the  creed  promulgated  by  that  council,  see  Appendix  A. 

8.  What  are  the  several  propositions  essentially  involved  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 

1st.  There  is  but  one  God,  and  this  God  is  one,  i.  e.,  indivisible. 

2d.  That  the  one  indivisiblo  divino  essence,  as  a  whole,  exists 
eternally  as  Father,  and  as  Son,  and  as  Holy  Ghost ;  that  each 
person  possesses  the  whole  essence,  and  is  constituted  a  distinct 
person  by  certain  incommunicable  j^roperties,  not  common  to  him 
with  the  others. 

3d.  The  distinction  between  these  three  is  a  personal  distinc- 
tion, in  the  sense  that  it  occasions  (1.)  the  use  of  the  personal 
pronouns,  I,  thou,  he,  (2.)  a  concurrence  in  counsel,  (3.)  a  dis- 
tinct order  of  operation. 

4tli.  These  persons  are  distinguished  as  first,  second,  and 
third,  to  express  an  order  indicated  in  Scripture  ;  (1.)  of  subsist- 
ence, insomuch  as  the  Father  is  neither  begotten  nor  proceedeth, 
while  the  Son  is  eternally  begotten  by  the  Father,  and  the  Spirit 
eternally  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  (2.)  of  opera- 
tion, insomuch  that  the  first  person  sends  and  operates  through 
the  second,  and  the  first  and  second  send  and  operate  through  the 
third. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  establish  this  doctrine  in  all  its  parts 
by  the  testimony  of  Sci-ipture,  it  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  prove 
the  following  propositions  in  their  order  : 

1st.  That  God  is  one. 

2d.  That  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  as  to  his  divine  nature,  was  truly 
God,  yet  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father. 

3d.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  is  truly  God,  yet  a  distinct  person. 

4th.  That  the  Scriptures  directly  teach  a  trinity  of  persons  in 
one  Godhead. 


SYNOPSIS   OF   ARGUMENT.  133 

5th.  It  will  remain  to  gather  what  the  Scriptures  reveal  as  to 
the  eternal  and  necessary  relations  which  these  three  divine  per- 
sons sustain  to  each  other.  These  are  distributed  under  the  fol- 
lowing heads  :  (1.)  The  relation  which  the  second  person  sustains 
to  the  first,  or  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  ;  (2.)  the  relation 
which  the  third  person  sustains  to  the  first  and  second,  or  the 
eternal  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and,  (3.)  their  ])ersonal 
properties  and  order  of  ojjeration,  ad  extra. 

I.  God  is  one,  and  there  is  but  one  God. 

The  proof  of  this  proposition,  from  reason  and  Scripture,  has 
been  fully  set  forth  above,  in  chap,  vii,  on  the  Attributes  of  God, 
questions  5-10. 

The  answer  to  the  question.  How  the  coordinate  existence  of 
three  distinct  persons  in  the  Trinity  can  be  reconciled  with  this 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity  is  given  below  in  ques- 
tion 85  of  this  chapter. 

11.  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  as  to  his  divine  nature,  is  truly 
God,  and  yet  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father. 

9.  What  different  views  have  been  entertained  loitli  respect  to 
the  person  of  Christ  ? 

The  orthodox  doctrine  as  to  the  person  of  Christ,  is  that  he 
from  eternity  has  existed  as  the  coequal  Son  of  the  Father,  con- 
stituted of  the  same  infinite  self-existent  essence  with  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  orthodox  doctrine  as  to  his  person  as  at  present  consti- 
tuted, since  his  incarnation,  is  set  forth  in  chap.  20.  An  account 
of  the  different  heretical  opinions  as  to  his  person  are  given  below, 
in  questions  87-91,  of  this  chapter. 

10.  Hotu  far  did  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Clirist  expect  the 
Messiah  to  appear  as  a  divine  ijerson  ? 

When  Christ  appeared,  it  is  certain  that  the  great  mass  of  the 
Jewish  people  had  ceased  to  entertain  the  Scriptural  expectation 
of  a  divine  Saviour,  and  only  desired  a  temporal  prince,  in  a  pre- 
eminent sense,  a  favorite  of  heaven.  It  is  said,  however,  that 
scattered  hints  in  some  of  the  rabbinical  writinp^;  hidicate  that 


134  THE   HOLY   TRINITY. 

some  of  the  more  learned  and  spiritual  still  continued  true  to  the 
ancient  foith. 

11.  Hoio  may  tJie  pre'existence  of  Jesus  before  his  birth  by  the 
Virgin  he  proved  from  Scripture  ? 

1st.  Those  passages  which  say  that  he  is  the  creator  of  the  world. 
—John  i.,  3  ;  Col.  i.,  15-18. 

2d.  These  passages  which  directly  declare  that  he  was  with  the 
Father  before  the  world  was  ;  that  he  was  rich,  and  possessed 
glor}^ — John  i.,  1,  15,  30  ;  vi.,  62  ;  viii.,  58  ;  xvii.,  5  ;  2  Cor. 
viii.,  9. 

3d.  Those  passages  which  declare  that  he  "  came  into  the 
world,"  "  came  down  from  heaven." — John  iii.,  13,  31 ;  xiii.,  3  ; 
xvi.,  28  ;  1  Cor.  xv.,  47. 

12.  Hoiv  can  it  he  2^roved  that  the  Jehovah  ivho  manifested 
himself  as  the  God  of  the  Jews  under  the  old  economy  was  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  who  became  incarnate  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  ? 

As  this  fact  is  not  aflSrmed  in  any  single  statement  of  Scrip- 
ture, it  can  be  established  only  by  a  careful  comparison  of  many 
2)assages.  The  evidence,  as  compiled  from  Hill's  Lects.,  Book 
III.,  ch.  v.,  may  be  summed  up  as  follows  : 

1st.  All  the  divine  appearances  of  the  ancient  economy  are 
referred  to  one  p)crson.  Compare  Gen.  xviii.,  2,  17  ;  xxviii.,  13  ; 
xxxii.,  9,  31  ;  Ex.  iii.,  14,  15  ;  xiii.,  21 ;  xx.,  1,  2  ;  xxv.,  21 ; 
Deut.  iv.,  33,  36,  39  ;  Neh.  ix.,  7-28.  This  one  person  is  called 
Jehovah,  the  incommunicable  name  of  God,  and  at  the  same  time 
angel,  or  one  sent.  Compare  Gen.  xxxi.,  11,  13  ;  xlviii.,  15,  16  ; 
Hosea  xii.,  2,  5.  Compare  Ex.  iii.,  14, 15,  with  Acts  vii.,  30-35  ; 
and  Ex.  xiii.,  21,  with  Ex.  xiv.,  19  ;  and  Ex.  xx.,  1,  2,  with  Acts 
vii.,  38  ;  Is.  Ixiii.,  7,  9. 

2d.  But  God  the  Father  has  been  seen  by  no  man  (John  i., 
18  ;  vi.,  46)  :  neither  could  he  be  an  angel,  or  one  sent  by  any 
other  ;  yet  God  the  Son  has  been  seen  (1  John  i.,  1,  2),  and  sent 
(John  v.,  36). 

3d.  This  Jehovah,  who  was  at  the  same  time  the  angel,  or 
one  sent,  of  the  old  economy,  was  also  set  fortli  by  the  prophets 
as  the  Saviour  of  Israel,  and  the  author  of  the  new  dispensation. 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  135 

In  Zech.  ii.,  10, 11,  one  Jeliovah  is  represented  as  sending  another 
See  Micali  v.,  2.  In  Mai.  iii.,  1,  it  is  declared  that  "  the  Lord,'' 
"  the  messenger  of  the  covenant/'  shall  come  to  his  own  temple. 
This  applied  to  Jesus  (Mark  i.,  2).  Compare  Ps.  xcvii.,  7,  with 
Heb.  i.,  6  ;  and  Is.  vi.,  1-5,  with  John  xii.,  41. 

4th.  Certain  references  in  the  New  Testament  to  passages  in 
the  Old  appear  directly  to  imply  this  fact.  Compare  Ps.  Ixxviii., 
15,  16,  35,  with  1  Cor.  x.,  9. 

5th.  The  Church  is  one  under  all  disj)ensations,  and  Jesus 
from  the  beginning  is  the  Kedeemer  and  Head  of  the  Church  ; 
it  is,  therefore,  most  consistent  with  all  that  has  been  revealed  to 
us  as  to  the  offices  of  the  three  divine  persons  in  the  scheme  of 
redemption,  to  admit  the  view  here  presented.  See  also  John 
viii.,  56,  58  ;  Matt,  xxiii.,  37  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  10,  11. 

13.  What  evidence  of  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah  does  the  2d 
Psalm  2^resent  1 

It  declares  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  as  such  to  receive 
universal  power  over  the  whole  earth  and  its  inhabitants.  All 
are  exhorted  to  submit  to  him,  and  to  trust  him,  on  pain  of  his 
anger.    In  Acts  xiii.,  33,  Paul  declares  that  Psalm  refers  to  Christ. 

14.  What  evidence  is  furnished  hy  the  45th  Psalm  ? 

The  ancient  Jews  considered  this  Psalm  addressed  to  the  Mes- 
siah, and  the  fact  is  established  by  Paul  (Heb.  i.,  8,  9).  Here, 
therefore,  Jesus  is  called  God,  and  his  throne  eternal. 

15.  What  evidence  is  furnished  by  Psalm  110  ? 

That  this  Psalm  refers  to  the  Messiah  is  proved  by  Christ 
(Matt,  xxii.,  43,  44),  and  by  Paul  (Heb.  v.,  6  ;  vii.,  17.  He  is 
here  called  David's  Lord  (Adonai),  and  invited  to  sit  at  the  right 
hand  of  Jehovah  until  all  his  enemies  be  made  his  footstool. 

16.  What  evidence  is  furnished  by  Isaiah  ix.,  6  ? 

This  passage  self-evidently  refers  to  the  Messiah,  as  is  con- 
firmed by  ]\Iatt.  iv.,  14-16.  It  declares  explicitly  that  the  child 
born  "  is  also  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  the  Prince 
of  peace." 


136  THE   HOLY   TRINITY, 

17.  What  is  the  evidence  furnished  by  Micah  v.,  2  ? 

This  was  understood  by  the  Jews  to  refer  to  Christ,  wliich  is 
confirmed  by  Matt,  ii.,  6,  and  John  vii.,  42.  The  passage  declares 
that  his  goings  forth  have  been  "  from  ever  of  old/'  i.  e.,  from 
eternity. 

18,  What  evidence  is  furnished  hy  Malaclii  iii.,  1,  2  ? 

This  passage  self-evidently  refers  to  the  Messiah,  as  is  con- 
firmed by  Mark  i.,  2, 

The  Hebrew  term  (Adonai),  here  translated  Lord,  is  never 
apjjlied  to  any  other  than  the  supreme  Grod.  The  temple,  which 
was  sacred  to  the  presence  and  worship  of  Jehovah,  is  called  his 
temple.  And  in  verse  2d,  a  divine  work  of  judgment  is  ascribed 
to  him, 

19,  What  evidence  is  afforded  hy  the  loay  in  ivhich  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  apply  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
Christ  ? 

The  apostles  frequently  apply  the  language  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment to  Christ,  when  it  is  evident  that  the  original  writers  in- 
tended to  speak  of  Jehovah,  and  not  of  the  Messiah  as  such. 

Psalm  102  is  evidently  an  address  to  the  supreme  Lord, 
ascribing  to  him  eternity,  creation,  providential  government,  wor- 
ship, and  the  hearing  and  answering  of  prayer.  But  Paul  (Heb. 
i.,  10-12)  affirms  Christ  to  be  the  subject  of  the  address.  In  Is. 
xlv.,  20-25,  Jehovah  speaks  and  asserts  his  own  supreme  Lord- 
ship. But  Paul,  in  Rom.  xiv.,  11,  quotes  a  part  of  Jehovah's 
declaration  with  regard  to  himself,  to  prove  that  we  must  all 
stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ.  Compare  also  Is,  vi,, 
3,  with  John  xii.,  41. 

20.  What  is  the  general  character  of  the  evidence  upon  this 
subject  affoo'ded  by  the  Neio  Testament  '^ 

This  fundamental  doctrine  is  presented  to  us  in  every  individ- 
ual writing,  and  in  every  separate  paragraph  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, either  by  direct  assertion  or  by  necessary  implication,  as 
may  be  ascertained  by  every  honest  reader  for  himself.  The  mass 
of  this  testimony  is  so  great,  and  is  so  intimately  interwoven 
with  every  other  theme  in  every  passage,  that  I  have  room  here 


DIVINITY    OF   CHRIST.  137 

to  present  only  a  general  sample  of  the  evidence,  classified  under 
the  usual  heads. 

21.  Prove  that  the  New  Testament  ascribes  divine  titles  to 
Christ. 

John  i.,  1  ;  xx.,  28  ;  Acts  xx.,  28  ;  Rom.  ix.,  5  ;  2  Thess.  i., 
12  ;  1  Tim.  iii.,  16  ;  Titus  ii.,  13  ;  Heb.  i.,  8  ;  1  John,  v.,  20. 

22.  Prove  that  the  New  Testament  ascribes  divine  perfections 
to  Christ. 

Eternity. — John  i.,  2  ;  viii.,  58  ;  xvii.,  5  ;  Rev.  i.,  8,  17,  18  ; 
xxii.,  13. 

Immutability. — Heb.  i.,  11,  12,  and  xiii.,  8. 

Omnipresence. — John  iii.,  13  ;  Matt,  xviii.,  20  ;  xxviii.,  20. 

Omniscience. — Matt,  xi.,  27  ;  John  ii.,  23-25;  xxi.,  17;  Rev. 
ii.,  23. 

Omnipotence. — John  v.,  17  ;  Heb.  i.,  3 ;  Rev.  i.,  8  ;  xi.,  17. 

23.  Prove  that  the  Neiu  Testament  ascribes  divine  tvorks  to 
,  Christ. 

Creation. — John  1,  3,  10 ;  Col.  i.,  16,  17. 

Preservation  and  Providence. — Heb.  i.,  3  ;  Col.  i.,  17 ;  Matt, 
xxviii.,  18. 

Miracles. — John  v.,  21,  36. 

Judgment.— 2  Cor.  v.  10 ;  Matt,  xxv.,  31,  32  ;  John  v.,  22. 

A  work  of  grace,  including  election. — John  xiii.,  18. 

Sanctification,  Eph.  v.,  26 ;  sending  the  Holy  Ghost,  John 
xvi.,  7,  14 ;  giving  eternal  life,  John  x.,  28 ;  Turrettin,  Tom.  I., 
L.  3,  Q.  28. 

24.  Prove  that  the  New  Testament  teaches  that  siqyreme  loor- 
ship  shoidd  be  paid  to  Christ. 

Matt,  xxviii.,  19  ;  John  v.,  22,  23  ;  xiv.,  1 ;  Acts  vii.,  59,  60 ; 
1  Cor.  i.,  2  ;  2  Cor.,  xiii.,  14  ;  Phil,  ii.,  9,  10  ;  Heb.  i.,  6  ;  Rev. 
i.,  5,  6  ;  v.,  11,  12  ;  vii.,  10. 

25.  Prove  that  the  Son,  altho^tgh  God,  is  a  distinct  person 
from  the  Father. 

This  fact  is  so  plainly  taught  in  Scripture,  and  so  universally 


138  THE   HOLY    TRINITY. 

implied,  that  the  Sabellian  system,  which  denies  it,  has  never 
obtained  any  general  currency. 

Christ  is  sent  by  the  Father,  comes  from  him,  returns  to  him, 
receives  his  commandment,  does  his  will,  loves  him,  is  loved  by 
him,  addresses  prayer  to  him,  uses  the  pronouns  thou  and  he 
when  speaking  to  and  of  him.  This  is  necessarily  implied,  also, 
in  the  relative  titles.  Father  and  Son.  See  the  whole  New  Tes- 
tament. 

III.    The   Holy  Ghost  is  truly  God,  yet  a  distinct 

PERSON. 

26.  What  sects  have  held  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  creatu7'e  ? 

The  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  so  clearly  revealed  in  Scrip- 
ture that  very  few  have  dared  to  call  it  in  question.  The  early 
controversies  of  the  orthodox  with  the  Arians  precedent  and  con- 
sequent to  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  to  such  a  degree  ab- 
sorbed the  mind  of  both  parties  with  the  question  of  the  divinity 
of  the  Son,  that  very  little  2)rominence  was  given  in  that  age  to 
questions  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost.  Arius,  however,  is  said  to 
have  taught  that  as  the  Son  is  the  first  and  greatest  creature  of 
the  Father,  so  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  first  and  greatest  creature 
of  the  Son  ;  a  Krio^a  uTiofxarog,  a  creature  of  a  creature. — See 
Neander's  Ch.  Hist.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  416-420. 

Some  of  the  disciples  of  Macedonius,  who  lived  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  are  said  to  have  held  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  Supreme  God.  These  were  condemned  by  the 
second  General  Council,  which  met  at  Constautinope  A,  D.  381. 
This  council  defined  and  guarded  the  orthodox  faith,  by  adding 
definite  clauses  to  the  simi)le  reference  which  the  ancient  creed 
had  made  to  the  Holy  Ghost. — See  the  Creed  of  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,  in  Appendix  A. 

27.  By  luhom  has  the  Holy  Spirit  been  regarded  merely  as 
an  energy  of  God  ? 

Those  early  heretical  sects,  generally  styled  Monarchians  and 
Patripassians,  all  with  subordinate  distinctions  taught  that  there 
was  but  one  person  as  well  as  one  essence  in  the  Godhead,  who, 
in  different  relations,  is  called  Father,  Son,  or  Holy  Ghost.     In 


DIVINITY   AND   PERSONALITY   OF   THE   SPIRIT.  139 

the  sixteenth  centuiy  Socinus,  who  taught  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
a  mere  man,  maintained  that  the  term  Holy  Ghost  is  in  Scrip- 
ture used  as  a  designation  of  God's  energy,  when  exercised  in  a 
particular  way.  This  is  now  the  opinion  of  all  modern  Uni- 
tarians and  Kationalists. 

28.  How  can  it  he  proved  that  all  the  attributes  of  personality 
are  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

The  attributes  of  personality  are  such  as  intelligence,  volition, 
separate  agency.  Christ  uses  the  pronouns  I,  thou,  he,  when 
speaking  of  the  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  himself  and  the 
Father  :  "  I  will  send  him."  "  He  will  testify  of  me."  "  Whom 
the  Father  will  send  in  my  name."  Thus  he  is  sent ;  he  testi- 
fies ;  he  takes  of  the  things  of  Christ,  and  shows  them  to  us. 
He  teaches  and  leads  to  all  truth.  He  knows,  because  he  searches 
the  deep  things  of  God.  He  works  all  supernatural  gifts,  divid- 
ing to  every  man  as  he  wills. — John  xiv.,  17,  26;  xv.,  26;  1  Cor. 
ii.,  10,  11  ;  xii.,  11.  He  reproves,  glorifies,  helps,  intercedes. — 
John  xvi.,  7-13  ;  Eom.  viii.,  26. 

29.  How  may  his  personality  be  argued  from  the  offices  which 
he  is  said  in  the  Scriptures  to  execute  ? 

The  New  Testament  throughout  all  its  teachings  discovers 
the  plan  of  redemption  as  essentially  involving  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  applying  the  salvation  which  it  was  the  work  of 
the  Son  to  accomplish.  He  inspired  the  prophets  and  apostles  ; 
he  teaches  and  sanctifies  the  church;  he  selects  her  ofiicers,  quali- 
fying them  by  the  communication  of  special  gifts  at  his  will.  He 
the  advocate,  every  Christian  is  his  client.  He  brings  all  the 
grace  of  the  absent  Christ  to  us,  and  gives  it  effect  in  our  persons 
in  every  moment  of  our  lives.  His  personal  distinction  is  ob- 
viously involved  in  the  very  nature  of  these  functions  which 
he  discharges. — Luke  xii.,  12  ;  Acts  v.,  32  ;  xv.,  28  ;  xvi.,  6  : 
xxviii.,  25  ;  Kom.  xv.,  16  ;  1  Cor.  ii.,  13  ;  Heb.  ii.,  4  ;  iii.,  7  ;  2 
Pet.  i.,  21. 

30.  What  argument  for  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
may  be  deduced  from  the  formula  of  baptism  ? 

Christians  are  baptized  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 


140 


THE   HOLY    TRINITY. 


Holy  Ghost."  It  would  be  inconsistent  with  every  law  of  lan- 
guage and  reason  to  speak  of  the  "name"  of  an  energy,  or  to  asso- 
ciate an  energy  coordinately  with  two  distinct  persons. 

31.  How  may  his  personality  be  proved  by  what  is  said  of 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

In  Matt,  xii.,  31,  32  ;  Mark  iii.,  28,  29  ;  Luke  xii.,  10,  this 
sin  is  called  "  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost."  Now,  blas- 
phemy is  a  sin  committed  against  a  person,  and  it  is  here  distin- 
guished from  the  same  act  as  committed  against  the  other  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity. 

32.  How  can  such  expressions  as  "  giving,"  and  "pou?-i7ig 
out  the  Spirit,"  be  reconciled  with  his  personality  ? 

These  and  other  similar  expressions  are  used  figuratively  to 
set  forth  our  j)articipatiou  in  the  gifts  and  influences  of  the  Spu'it. 
It  is  one  of  the  most  natural  and  common  of  all  fio^ures  to  desi";- 
nate  the  gift  by  the  name  of  the  giver.  Thus  we  are  said  '"  to 
put  on  Christ,"  "  to  be  baptized  into  Christ,"  etc. — Eph.  v.,  30  ; 
Kom.  xiii.,  14  ;  Gal.  iii.,  27. 

33.  Show  that  the  names  of  God  are  applied  to  the  Spirit. 

Compare  Ex.  xvii.,  7,  and  Ps.  xcv.,  7,  with  Heb.  iii.,  7-11. — 
See  Acts  v.,  3,  4. 

34.  What  divine  attribute  do  the  Scriptures  asc7'ibe  to  him  ? 
Omnipresence. — Ps.  cxxxix.,  7  ;  1  Cor.  xii.,  13. 
Omniscience. — 1  Cor.  ii.,  10,  11. 

Omnipotence. — Luke  i.,  35  ;  Kom.  viii.,  11.  * 

35.  What  agency  in  the  external  loorld  do  the  Scriptures 
ascribe  to  him  ? 

Creation. — Gen.  i.,  2  ;  Job  xxvi.,  13  ;  Ps.  civ.,  30. 
The  power  of  working  miracles. — Matt,  xii.,  28  ;  1  Cor.  xii., 
9-11. 

36.  Hoio  is  his  supreme  divinity  established  by  lohat  the 
Scripttures  teach  of  his  agency  in  redemption  ? 

He  is  declared  to  be  the  immediate  agent  in  regeneration, 
John  iii.,  6  ;  Titus  iii.,  5  ;  and  in  the  resurrection  of  our  bodies. 


DIRECTLY  TAUGHT.  141 

Kom.  viii.,  11.  His  agency  in  the  generation  of  Christ's  human 
nature,  in  his  resurrection,  and  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
were  exertions  of  his  divine  power  in  preparing  the  redemption 
which  he  now  applies. 

37.  Hoio  can  such  expressions  as,  "  he  shall  not  speak  of  him- 
self," be  reconciled  with  his  divinity  ? 

This  and  other  similar  exj^ressions  are  to  be  understood  as 
referring  to  the  official  work  of  the  Spirit ;  just  as  the  Son  is 
said  in  his  official  character  to  be  sent  by  and  to  be  subordinate 
to  the  Father.  The  object  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his  official  work 
in  the  hearts  of  men,  is  not  to  reveal  the  relations  of  his  own  per- 
son to  the  other  persons  of  the  Godhead,  but  simply  to  reveal 
the  mediatorial  character  and  work  of  Christ. 

IV.  The  Sckiptures  directly  teach  a  trinity  of  persons 
IN  ONE  Godhead. 

38.  Hoio  is  this  trinity  of  persons  directly  taught  in  the  for- 
mula of  baptism  ? 

Baptism  in  the  name  of  God  implies  the  recognition  of  God's 
divine  authority,  his  covenant  engagement  to  give  us  eternal  life, 
and  our  engagement  to  render  him  divine  worship  and  obedience. 
Christians  are  baptized  thus  into  covenant  relation  with  three 
persons  distinctly  named  in  order.  The  language  necessarily  im- 
plies that  each  name  represents  a  person.  The  nature  of  the 
sacrament  proves  that  each  person  must  be  divine. — See  Matt, 
xxviii.,  19. 

39.  How  is  this  doctrine  directly  taught  in  the  fornmla  of  the 
apostolical  benediction  ? 

See  2  Cor.  xiii.,  14.  We  have  here  distinctly  named  three  per- 
sons, and  each  communicating  a  sejiarate  blessing,  according  to 
his  own  order  and  manner  of  operation.  Tlie  benevolence  of  the 
Father  in  designing,  the  grace  of  the  Son  in  the  acquisition,  the 
communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  application  of  salvation. 
These  are  three  distinct  personal  names,  three  distinct  modes  of 
personal  agency,  and  each  equally  divine. 


142  THE  HOLY   TRINITY. 

40.  What  evidence  is  afforded  hy  the  narrative  of  Christ's 
baptism  ? 

Sec  Matt,  iii.,  13-17.  Here  also  we  have  presented  to  us  three 
persons  distinctly  named  and  described  as  severally  acting,  each 
after  his  own  order.  The  Father  speaking  from  heaven,  the  Spirit 
descending  like  a  dove  and  lighting  upon  Christ,  Christ  acknowl- 
edged as  the  beloved  Son  of  God  ascending  from  the  water. 

41.  State  the  argument  from  John  xv.,  26,  and  the  context. 

In  this  passage  again  we  have  three"  persons  severally  named 
at  the  same  time,  and  their  relative  action  affirmed.  The  Son  is 
the  person  speaking  of  the  Father  and  the  Spirit,  and  claiming 
for  himself  the  right  of  sending  the  Spirit.  The  Father  is  the 
person  from  whom  the  Spirit  proceeds.  Of  the  Spirit  the  Son 
says  that  "he  will  come,"  "he  will  be  sent,"  "he  proceedeth," 
"  he  will  testify." 

42.  What  is  the  state  of  the  evidence  with  regard  to  the  gen- 
uineness of  1  John  v.,  7  ? 

I  have  not  room  in  which  to  present  a  synopsis  of  the  argu- 
ment for  and  against  the  genuineness  of  the  disputed  clause  which 
could  be  of  any  value. — See  Home's  Intro.,  Vol.  IV.,  Part  II., 
chapter  iv.,  section  5. 

It  will  suffice  to  say — 

1st.  The  disputed  clause  is  as  follows,  including  part  of  the 
eighth  verse  :  "in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  and  these  three  are  one.  And  there  are  three  that  hear 
loitness  in  earth." 

2d.  Learned  and  pious  men  are  divided  in  their  opinions  as  to 
the  preponderance  of  the  evidence ;  the  weight  of  opinion  inclining 
ao-ainst  the  "-enuineness  of  the  clause. 

3d.  The  doctrine  taught  is  so  scriptural,  and  the  gi'ammatical 
and  logical  connection  of  the  clause  with  the  rest  of  the  passage 
is  so  intimate,  that  for  the  purpose  of  edif  cation,  in  the  present 
state  of  our  knowledge,  the  clause  ought  to  be  retained,  although 
for  the  purpose  of  establishing  doctrine,  it  ought  not  to  be  relied 
upon. 

4th.     The  rejection  of  this  passage  does  in  no  degi-ee  lessen 


DIRECTLY   TAUGHT.  143 

the  irresistible  weight  of  evidence  of  tlie  truth  of  the  orthodox 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  which  the  Scriptures  afford. 

43.  What  jJassages  in  the  Old  Testament  imply  the  existence 
of  more  thaJi  one  j^ci'son  in  the  Godhead  ? 

Mark  the  use  of  the  plural  in  the  following  passages. — Gen. 
i.,  26  ;  iii.,  22  ;  xi.,  7  ;  Isa.  vi.,  8.  Compare  the  three-fold  repe- 
tition of  the  name  Jehovah  (Num.  vi.,  24-26)  with  the  apostoli- 
cal benediction. — 2  Cor.  xiii.,  14.  Mark  also  in  Isa.  vi.,  3,  the 
threefold  repetition  of  the  ascription  of  holiness. 

44.  What  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  speak  of  the  Son  as 
a  distinct  person  from  the  Father,  and  yet  as  divine  ? 

In  Ps.  xlv.,  6,  7,  we  have  the  Father  addressing  the  Son  as 
God,  and  anointing  him. — See  also  Ps.  ex.,  1;  Isa.  xliv.,  6,  7,  14. 

The  prophecies  always  set  forth  the  Messiah  as  a  person  dis- 
tinct from  the  Father,  and  yet  he  is  called  "  Mighty  God,"  etc. — 
Isa.  ix.,  6  ;  Jer.  xxiii.,  6. 

45.  What  p)assages  of  the  Old  Testa7nent  speak  of  the  Spirit 
as  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father,  and  yet  as  divine  ? 

Gen.  i.,  2  ;  vi.,  3;  Ps.  civ.,  30;  cxxxix.,  7;  Job  xxvi.,  13;  Isa. 
xlviii.,  16. 

V.  It  remains  for  us  to  consider  what  the  Scriptures 

TEACH    CONCERNING    THE    ETERNAL    AND     NECESSARY    RELATIONS 
which  the  three  DIVINE  PERSONS  SUSTAIN  TO  EACH  OTHER. 

(I.)  The  relation  which  the  second  person  sustains  to 

THE  FIRST,  OR  THE  ETERNAL  GENERATION  OF  THE  SON. 

46.  Wliat  is  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  Hehreto  ivord  i?  (son)  ? 

It  is  used  in  the  sense,  1st,  of  son  ;  2d,  of  descendant  ;  hence 
in  the  plural  "  children  of  Israel,"  for  Israelites.  Also  when 
joined  to  a  name  of  place  or  nation  to  denote  inhabitants  or 
citizens  thereof,  as  "sons  of  Zion,"  etc.;  3d,  of  pupil,  disciide, 
worshipper  ;  thus  "sons  of  the  prophets,"  (1  Kings  xx.,  35,) and 
"  sons  of  God,"  applied,  (1.)  to  kings,  Ps.  ii.,  7 ;  (2.)  to  angels, 
Gen.  vi.  2  ;  (3.)  to  worshippers  of  God,  his  own  people,  Deut. 


144  THE   HOLT   TRINITY. 

xiv.,  1;  4th,  in  combination  with  substantives,  expressing  age  or 
quality,  etc.;  thus,  "son  of  years,"  for  aged,  Lev.  xii.,  6;  "son  of 
Belial,"  for  worthless  fellow,  Deut.  xiii.,  13  ;  "  son  of  death,"  for 
one  deserving  to  die,  1  Sam.  xx.,  31  ;  "a  hill  son  of  fatness," 
for  a  fruitful  hill.  The  same  idiom  has  been  carried  into  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament. — See  Gesenius'  Heb.  Lex. 

47.  In  what  sense  are  men  called  "  sons  of  God  "  in  Scrip- 
ture ? 

The  general  idea  embraced  in  the  relation  of  sonship  includes, 
1st,  similarity  and  derivation  of  nature  ;  2d,  parental  and  filial 
love;  and  3d,  heirship. 

In  this  general  sense  all  God's  holy,  intelligent  creatures  are 
called  his  sons.  The  term  is  applied  in  an  eminent  sense  to  kings 
and  magistrates  who  receive  dominion  from  God,  (Ps.  Ixxxii.,  6,) 
and  to  Christians  who  are  the  subjects  of  spiritual  regeneration 
and  adoption,  (Gal.  iii.,  26,)  the  special  objects  of  divine  favor, 
(Matt,  v.,  9,)  and  are  like  him,  (Matt,  v.,  45.)  When  applied  to 
creatures,  whether  men  or  angels,  (Job  i.,  6,)  this  word  is  always 
used  in  the  plural.  In  the  singular  it  is  applied  only  to  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  with  the  single  exception  of  its 
application  once  to  Adam,  (Luke  iii.,  38,)  when  the  reason  is 
obviously  to  mark  the  peculiarity  of  his  derivation  from  God 
immediately  without  the  intervention  of  a  human  father. 

48.  What  different  views  ivith  regard  to  the  sonshij)  of  Christ 
have  been  entertained  ? 

1st.  Some  Socinians  hold  that  he  is  called  Son  of  God  only  as 
an  official  title,  as  it  is  applied  in  the  plural  to  ordinary  kings 
and  magistrates. 

2d.  Other  Socinians  hold  that  he  was  called  Son  of  God  only 
because  he  was  brought  into  being  by  God's  supernatural  agency, 
and  not  by  ordinary  generation.  To  maintain  this  they  appeal 
to  Luke  i.,  35.  For  an  explanation  of  this  passage  see  below, 
question  70. 

3d.  Arians  hold  that  he  is  so  called  because  he  was  created 
by  God  more  in  his  own  likeness  than  any  other  creature,  and 
first  in  the  order  of  time. 

4th.  The  orthodox  doctrine  is,  that  Christ  is  called  Son  of 


ETERNAL   SONSHIP   OF   CHRIST.  145 

God  to  indicate  his  eternal  and  necessary  personal  relation  in  the 
Godhead  to  the  first  person,  who,  to  indicate  his  reciprocal  rela- 
tion, is  called  the  Father. 

49.  What  is  the  distinction  which  some  of  the  fathers  made 
between  the  eternal,  the  ante-mundane,  and  the  mundane  genera- 
tion of  the  Son .? 

1st.  By  his  eternal  generation  they  intended  to  mark  his 
essential  relation  to  the  Father  as  his  consuhstantial  and  eternal 
Son. 

2d.  By  his  ante-mundane  generation  they  meant  to  signify  tlte 
commencement  of  the  outgoings  of  his  energy,  and  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  person  beyond  the  bosom  of  the  Godhead,  in  the  sphere 
of  external  creation,  etc. — Col.  i.,  15. 

3d.  By  his  mundane  generation  they  intended  his  supernatural 
birth  in  the  flesh. — Luke  i.,  35. 

50.  What  is  the  distinction  which  some  of  the  fathers  made 
between  the  Xoyoc;  evdLadeToq  (ratio  insita,  reason),  and  the  Xoyog 
■rTpo(f)opticog  (ratio  prolata,  reason  brought  forth,  or  expressed)  ? 

The  orthodox  fathers  used  the  phrase  logos  endiathetos  to 
designate  the  Word,  whom  they  held  to  be  a  distinct  person, 
dwelling  from  eternity  with  the  Father.  The  ground  of  their  use 
of  this  phrase  was  a  fanciful  analogy  which  they  conceived  existed 
between  the  relation  which  the  eternal  logos  (word,  or  reason), 
(John  i.,  1,)  sustains  to  the  Father,  and  the  relation  which  the 
reason  of  a  man  sustains  to  liis  own  rational  soul.  Thus  the 
logos  endiathetos  was  God's  own  reflective  idea  hypostatized.. 
They  were  led  to  tliis  vain  attempt  to  philosophize  upon  an  in- 
comprehensible subject  by  the  influence  exerted  uj)on  them  by  the 
Platonic  philosophers  of  that  age,  who  taught  a  sort  of  metaphy- 
sical trinity,  e.  g.,  that  in  the  one  God  there  were  thi'ce  constitu- 
ent principles,  to  dyadov,  goodness,  vovg,  intelligence,  'ipvx'r).',  vital- 
ity. Their  immediate  object  was  to  illustrate  the  essential  unity 
of  the  Trinity,  and  to  prove,  against  the  Arians,  tlic  essential, 
divinity  of  the  Son,  from  tlie  application  to  him  by  John  of  the 
epithet  Xoyog  Oeov. 

By  the  phrase  logos  prophoricos  they  intended,  to  designate 


146  THE   HOLY    TRINITY. 

him  as  the  reason  of  God  revealed,  when  he  proceeded  from  the 
Father  in  the  work  of  creation. — See  Hill's  Lectures. 

The  Arians,  taking  advantage  of  the  essential  inadequacy  of 
this  language,  confused  the  controversy  by  acknowledging  that 
the  phrase  logos  prophoricos  did  truly  apply  to  Christ,  since  he 
came  forth  from  God  as  the  first  and  highesL  creation  and  image 
of  his  mind.  But  declaring,  with  some  color  of  truth,  that  the 
phrase  logos  endiathetos,  when  applied  to  Christ,  taught  pure 
Sabellianism,  since  it  marked  no  personal  distinction,  but  signified 
nothing  else  than  the  mind  of  the  Father  itself 

51.  Hoio  is  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  sonship  stated  in  the  Ni~ 
cene  and  Athanasian  creeds  ? 

See  those  creeds  in  Appendix  A. 

52.  What  is  the  common  statement  and  explanation  of  this 
doctrine  given  by  orthodox  ivriters  ? 

The  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  is  commonly  defined  to  be 
an  eternal  personal  act  of  the  Father,  wherein,  by  necessity  of 
nature,  not  by  choice  of  will,  he  generates  the  person  (not  the 
essence)  of  the  Son,  by  communicating  to  him  the  whole  indi- 
visible substance  of  the  Godhead,  without  division,  alienation,  or 
change,  so  that  the  Son  is  the  express  image  of  his  Father's  per- 
son, and  eternally  continues,  not  from  the  Father,  but  in  the 
Father,  and  the  Father  in  the  Son. — See  particularly  Heb.  i.,  3  ; 
John  X.,  38  ;  xiv.,  11  ;  xvii.,  21.  The  principal  Scriptural  sup- 
port of  the  doctrine  of  derivation  is  John  v.,  26. — TuiTcttin,  Tom. 
I.,  L.  3,  Q.  29. 

Those  theologians  who  insist  upon  this  definition  believe  that 
the  idea  of  derivation  is  necessaiily  implied  in  generation  ;  that 
it  is  indicated  by  both  the  reciprocal  terms  Father  and  Son,  and 
by  the  entire  representation  given  in  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  rela- 
tion and  order  of  the  persons  of  the  Godhead,  the  Father  always 
standing  for  the  Godhead  considered  absolutely  ;  and  they  hold 
that  this  theory  is  necessary  to  the  vindication  of  the  essential 
unity  of  the  three  persons.  The  older  theologians,  therefore, 
styled  the  Father  TTTjyi]  OeorrjTog,  fountain  of  Godhead,  and  aina 
vLov,  principle  or  cause  of  the  Son,  while  the  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost  were  both  called  diTiarot  (those  depending  upon  another 
as  their  principle  or  cause). 


ETERNAL   SONSHIP   OF   CHRIST.  147 

They  at  the  same  time  guarded  the  essential  equality  of  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  Father,  by  saying,  1st,  that 
the  whole  divine  essence,  without  division  or  change,  and,  there- 
fore, all  the  divine  attributes,  were  communicated  to  them  ;  and, 
2d,  that  this  communication  was  made  by  an  eternal  and  necessary 
act  of  the  Father,  and  not  of  his  mere  will. 

53.  Wliat  is  essential  to  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
generation  of  the  Son  ? 

In  the  above  rendered  account  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  there 
is  nothing  inconsistent  with  revealed  truth.  The  idea  of  deri- 
vation, as  involved  in  the  generation  of  the  Son  by  the  Father, 
appears  rather  to  be  a  rational  explanation  of  revealed  facts  than 
a  revealed  fact  itself.  On  such  a  subject,  therefore,  it  should  be 
held  in  suspense.  All  that  is  explicitly  revealed  is,  1st,  the  term 
Son  is  applied  to  Christ  as  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead. 
2d.  This  tenn,  and  the  equivalent  one,  "  only  begotten,"  reveal 
some  relation,  within  Godhead,  of  the  person  of  the  Son  to  the 
person  of  the  Father.  The  designation  Father  being  reciprocal 
to  that  of  Son.  3d.  That  this  relation  is  such  that  Father  and 
Son  are  the  same  in  substance,  and  are  personally  equal ;  that  the 
Father  is  first  and  the  Son  second  in  the  order  of  revelation  and 
operation,  that  the  Son  is  the  express  image  of  the  Father's  per- 
son, not  the  Father  of  the  Son's,  and  that  the  Son  is  not  from 
the  Father,  but  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  the  Son. 

54.  How  may  it  be  shown  that  the  common  doctrine  is  not 
self-contradictory  ? 

There  is  evidently  no  inconsistency  in  the  simple  scriptural 
statement  given  in  the  answer  to  the  last  question.  Heterodox 
controversialists,  however,  have  claimed  that  there  is  a  manifest 
inconsistency  in  the  orthodox  theory  that  the  Father  communi- 
cates to  the  Son  the  whole  divine  essence  without  alienating  it 
from  himself,  dividing  or  otherwise  changing  it.  Tliis  subject 
does  not  fall  within  the  legitimate  sphere  of  human  logic,  yet  it 
is  evident  that  this  theory  involves  no  contradiction  and  no  mys- 
tery greater  than  that  involved  in  the  whole  essence  of  jGrod  being 
at  the  same  time  present,  without  division  or  diiFusion  to  every 
point  of  space. 


148  THE   HOLY   TKINITT. 

55.  If  God  is  "  ens  a  se  ipso,"  self -existent,  how  can  the  Son 
be  really  God,  if  he  he  "  deo^  ek  6eov/'  God  from  the  Father  ? 

The  objection  presented  in  this  question  does  not  pi  ess  against 
the  scriptural  statement  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  pre- 
sented ahove  (question  53,)  but  solely  against  the  theory  of  deri- 
vation as  involved  in  the  ordinary  definition  (see  question  52.) 
Those  who  insist  upon  the  validity  of  that  view  rebut  the  objec- 
tion by  saying  that  self-existence  is  an  attribute  of  essence,  not 
of  person.  The  Father,  as  a  person,  generates  the  person,  not 
the  essence  of  the  Son,  whose  person  is  constituted  of  the  very 
same  self-existent  essence  with  the  Father's.  Thus  the  Son  is 
dvTodeog,  i.  e.,  Deus  a  se  ipso  as  to  his  essence,  but  deoq  eic  Oeov, 
God  from  God,  as  to  his  person, 

56.  What  argument  for  the  eternal  sonship  of  Christ  may  he 
derived  from  the  designation  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  as 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  ? 

In  the  apostolical  benediction  and  the  formula  of  baptism  the 
one  God  is  designated  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  The 
teim  Son  cannot  here  be  applied  to  Christ  as  an  official  title,  or 
as  a  miraculously  generated  man,  because,  1st,  he  is  so  called  as 
one  of  the  three  divine  persons  constituting  the  Godhead.  2d. 
The  term  Son  is  reciprocal  to  the  term  Father,  and  therefore 
designates  the  relation  of  the  second  person  to  the  first.  What- 
ever this  relation  may  involve  besides,  it  evidently  must  be  eter- 
nal and  necessary,  and  includes  paternity  on  the  part  of  the  first 
person,  and  filiation  on  the  part  of  the  second. 

57.  JVhat  argument  in  support  of  this  doctrine  may  he  de- 
rived from  the  use  of  the  ivord  son  in  Matt.  xi.  27  and  Luke 
X.  22  ? 

In  both  of  these  passages  the  term  Son  is  used  to  designate 
the  divine  nature  of  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  in  his  rela- 
tion to  the  first.  The  Son,  as  Son,  knows  and  is  known  by  the 
Father  as  Father.  He  is  infinite  in  knowledge  and  therefore 
knows  the  Father.  He  is  infinite  in  being  and  therefore  can  be 
known  bv  none  other  than  the  Father. 


ETERNAL   SONSHIP   OF   CHRIST.  149 

58.  State  the  argument  from  John  i.,  1-14. 

Here  the  eternal  Word,  who  was  God,  discovered  himself  as 
such  to  his  discij^les  by  the  manifestation  of  his  native  divine 
glory,  "  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father."  He 
was  "  only  begotten  Son,"  therefore  as  God,  and  not  either  as 
Mediator  or  as  man. 

59.  State  the  argument  from  the  application  in  Scripture  of 
the  terms  fiovoyevrjg,  {only  begotten)  and  ISiog^  {oivn)  to  the  Son- 
ship  of  Christ. 

Although  many  of  God's  creatures  are  called  his  sons,  the 
phrase,  Son  of  God  in  the  singular,  and  when  limited  by  the 
terms  "own"  and  "only  begotten,"  is  applied  only  to  Christ. 

Christ  is  called  "only  begotten  Son  of  God."— -John  i.,  14,  18; 
iii.,  16,  18  ;  1  John  iv.,  9. 

In  John  v.,  18,  Christ  calls  God  his  oivn  Father,  (see  Greek.) 
He  is  called  the  own  Son  of  the  Father.^ — Rom.  viii.,  32. 

The  use  of  these  qualifying  terms  proves  that  Christ  is  called 
Son  of  God  in  a  sense  different  from  that  in  which  any  other  is 
so  called.  Therefore  it  designates  him  as  God  and  not  as  man, 
nor  as  the  bearer  of  an  office. 

60.  What  is  the  argument  derived  from  John  v.,  22,  and  con- 
text, and  from  John  x.,  33-37. 

In  the  first  passage  the  terms  Father  and  son  are  used  to 
designate  two  divine  and  equal  persons.  As  Son,  Christ  does 
whatsoever  the  Father  doeth,  and  is  to  receive  equal  honor. 

In  the  second  passage,  Jesus  assumes  the  title,  "  Son  of  God," 
as  equivalent  to  assenting  that  he  was  God.  The  Jews  charging 
it  upon  him  as  blasphemy. 

61.  What  is  the  evidence  furnished  by  such  passages  as  speak 
of  the  manifestation,  giving  or  sending  of  the  Son  ? 

See  1  John  iii,,  8  ;  Rom.  viii.,  3  ;  John  iii.,  16,  etc. 
To  say  that  the  Son  was  sent  or  manifested  implies  that  he 
was  Son  before  he  was  sent  or  manifested  as  such. 

62.  State  the  argument  from  Rom.  i.,  3,  4. 

The  argument  from  this  passage  is  two-fold  :  1st.  The  Son  of 


150  THE   HOLY   TRINITY. 

God  is  declared  to  have  been  made  flesh,  and  therefore  must  have 
preexisted  as  Son.  2d.  By  the  resurrection  he  was  powerfully 
manifested  to  be  the  Son  of  God  as  to  his  divine  nature.  The 
phrases,  according  to  thejflesh,  and  according  to  the  spirit  of  holi- 
ness, are  evidently  antithetical,  designating  severally  the  Lord's 
human  and  divine  natures. 

63.  State  the  argument  from  Eom.  viii.,  3. 

Here  God's  own  Son  was  sent  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh. 
Obviously  he  must  have  preexisted  as  such  before  he  assumed  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  the  assumption  of  which  certainly  could 
not  have  constituted  him  the  own  Son  of  God. 

64.  State  the  argument  from  Col.  i.,  15-21. 

In  this  passage  the  apostle  sets  forth  at  length  the  nature  and 
glory  of  him  whom,  in  the  thirteenth  verse,  he  had  called  God's 
dear  Sou.  Thus  he  proves  that  Christ  as  Son  is  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God,  and  that  by  him  all  things  consist,  etc. 

Q5.  State  the  argument  from  Heb.  i.,  5-8. 

Paul  is  here  setting  forth  the  superiority  of  Christ  as  a  divine 
person.  As  divine  he  calls  him  "  the  Son,"  "  the  first  begotten." 
This  Sou  is  brought  into  the  world,  and  therefore  must  have  pre- 
existed as  such.  As  Son  he  is  declared  to  be  God,  and  to  reign 
upon  an  everlasting  throne. 

QQ.  What  passages  are  relied  upon  by  the  opponents  of  the 
orthodox  doctrine  for  proof  that  the  term  Son,  as  applied  to 
Christ,  is  an  official  title,  and  hoiv  can  they  he  explained  ? 

From  such  passages  as  Matt,  xvi.,  16,  and  John  i.,  49,  it  is 
argued  that  the  epithets,  Christ  or  Messiah,  and  King  of  Israel, 
are  equivalent  to  Son  of  God,  and  that  consequently  he  is  called 
Son  only  because  he  occupies  these  offices.  From  John  x.,  35,  36, 
it  is  argued  that  Christ  is  called  Son,  because  the  Father  hath 
sanctified  him  and  sent  him  into  the  world. 

We  answer  that  not  one  of  these  passages,  nor  any  other,  ex- 
pressly declares  that  Christ  is  called  Son  because  he  bears  the 
office  of  mediator;  they  merely  declare  that  he  is  Son  of  God,  and 
holds  that  office.    But  even  if  it  could  be  proved  that  he  is  called 


ETEENAL    SONSHIP    OF    CHRIST.  151 

on  occasion  "  Son  of  Grod/'  on  the  ground  of  any  subordinate 
relation,  which,  as  man  or  as  mediator,  he  sustains  to  God,  that 
fact  could  not  in  the  least  invalidate  the  testimony  of  those  pas- 
sages which  we  have  above  cited  to  prove  that  he  is  also  called 
Son  of  God  in  a  higher  sense,  as  the  Word  who  from  the  begin- 
ning was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father. 

67.  Prove  that  neither  the  2d  Psalm  nor  Kom.  i.,  4,  teach  that 
Christ  was  made  Son  of  God. 

Dr.  Alexander  says  (see  Com.  on  Psalms)  with  relation  to 
Psalms  ii.,  7,  that  it  means  simply,  "  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
I  am  thy  Father,  now  always  eternally  thy  Father.  Even  if 
'  this  day'  be  referred  to  the  inception  of  the  filial  relation,  it  is 
thrown  indefinitely  back  by  the  form  of  reminiscence,  or  narra- 
tion in  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.  '  Jehovah  said  to  me,'  but 
when  ?  If  understood  to  mean  from  everlasting  the  form  of  ex- 
pression would  be  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  other  figurative 
forms  by  which  the  Scriptures  represent  things  really  ineffable  in 
human  language."  With  regard  to  Rom.  i.,  4,  Dr.  Hodge  says 
(see  Com.  on  Romans)  that  the  Greek  word  opcodevrog^  translated 
in  the  authorized  version  declared,  is  always  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament  used  to  signify  constitute,  appoint.  But  the 
great  majority  of  commentators,  including  some  of  the  most 
ancient  Greek  fathers,  agree  in  interpreting  it  in  this  passage  in 
the  sense  of  declare,  manifest. 

It  is  very  evident  that  Christ  called  himself  Son  of  God,  and 
was  so  recognized  by  his  disciples  before  his  resurrection,  and, 
therefore,  he  might  have  been  revealed  or  manifested  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  but  could  not  have  been  constituted  such  by  that 
event. 

68.  Show  that  Acts  xiii.,  32, 33  does  not  prove  that  Jesus  was 
m.ade  Son  of  God. 

It  is  argued  from  this  passage  that  Jesus  was  constituted  Son 
of  God  by  his  resurrection,  as  the  first  stage  of  his  ofiicial  exal- 
tation. This  can  not  be,  1st,  because  he  was  sent  into  the  world 
as  Son  of  God,  2d.  Because  the  word  dvaoTTJoag,  having  raised 
up,  refers  to  the  raising  up  Christ  at  his  birth,  and  not  to  his 
resurrection  (there  is  nothing  in  the  Greek  corresponding  to  the 


152  THE    HOLY   TRINITY. 

word  a^ain  in  the  English.)  When  this  word  is  used  to  desig- 
nate the  resurrection  it  is  usually  qualified  by  the  phrase  from 
the  dead,  as  in  verse  34th.  Verse  32  declares  the  fulfillment  of 
the  promise  referred  to  in  verse  23d. — See  Alexander's  Com.  on 
Acts. 

69.  How  can  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  Son  as  in- 
ferior and  subject  to  the  Father  he  reconciled  with  this  doctrine  ? 

It  is  objected  that  such  passages  prove  that  Jesus,  as  Son,  is 
inferior  and  subject  to  the  Father. 

We  answer  that  in  John  iii.,  13  the  "  Son  of  Man"  is  said  to 
have  come  down  from  heaven,  and  to  be  in  heaven.  But  surely 
Jesus,  as  Son  of  Man,  was  not  omnipresent.  In  Acts  xx.,  28 
Grod  is  said  to  purchase  his  church  with  his  own  blood ;  but 
surely  Christ,  as  God,  did  not  shed  his  blood.  The  explanation 
of  this  is  that  it  is  the  common  usage  of  Scripture  to  designate 
the  single  person  of  the  God-man  by  a  title  belonging  to  him  as 
the  possessor  of  one  nature,  while  the  condition,  attribute,  rela- 
tion, or  action  predicated  of  him  is  true  only  of  the  other  nature. 
Thus  in  the  passages  in  question  he  is  called  "  Son  of  God,"  be- 
cause he  is  the  eternal  Word,  while  at  the  same  time  he  is  said 
to  be  inferior  to  the  Father,  because  he  is  also  man  and  mediator. 

70.  What  is  the  true  explanation  of  Luke  i.,  35  ? 

That  Jesus  was  revealed  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  proved  to  be 
such  by  his  miraculous  conception.  It  is  not  probable  that  it  is 
meant  he  was  called  Son  because  of  that  event,  since  his  human 
nature  was  begotten  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  yet  he  is  never  called 
the  Son  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

But  even  if  it  were  affirmed  that  he  was  called  Son  of  God 
for  that  reason,  it  would  still  remain  true,  as  above  shown,  that 
he  is  revealed  as  from  eternity  the  Son  of  God  for  an  infinitely 
higher  reason. 

(II.)  The  relation  which  the  third  person  sustains  to 

THE    first    and    SECOND,    OR    THE    ETERNAL   PROCESSION    OF    THE 

Holy  Ghost. 

71.  What  is  the  etymology  of  the  word  Spirit,  and  the  usage 
of  its  Hebrew  and  Greek  equivalents  ? 


ETERNAL   PROCESSION   OF   THE   SPIRIT.  153 

The  English  word  spirit  is  from  the  Latin  spiritus,  breathy 
wind,  air,  life,  soul,  which  in  turn  is  from  the  verb  spiro,  to 
breatJie.  The  equivalent  Hebrew  word,  Sj-'i,  has  a  perfectly  anal- 
ogous usage.  1st.  Its  primary  sense  is  wind,  air  in  motion,  Gen. 
viii.,  1  ;  then,  2d,  breath,  the  breath  of  life.  Gen.  vi.,  17  ;  Job  xvii., 
1  ;  3d,  animal  soul,  vital  principle  in  men  and  animals,  1  Sam. 
XXX.,  12  ;  4th,  rational  soul  of  man,  Gen.  xli.,  8,  and  hence,  meta- 
phorically, disposition,  temperament,  Num.  v.,  14  ;  5th,  Spirit  of 
Jehovah,  Gen.  i.,  2  ;  Ps.  li.,  11. — Gesenius'  Lex. 

The  equivalent  Greek  word,  nvevfia,  has  also  the  same  usage. 
It  is  derived  from,  rrj't'w,  to  breathe,  to  blow.  It  signifies,  1st, 
breath.  Rev.  xi.,  11  ;  2d,  air  in  motion,  John  iii.,  8  ;  3d,  the  vital 
principle.  Matt,  xxvii.,  50  ;  4th,  the  rational  soul  spoken  (1.)  of, 
the  disembodied  spirits  of  men,  Heb.  xii.,  23  ;  (2.)  of  devils, 
Matt.,  X.,  1  ;  (3.)  of  angels,  Heb.  i.,  14  ;  (4.)  the  Spirit  of  God, 
spoken  of  God,  a,  absolutely  as  an  attribute  of  his  essence,  John 
iv.,  24  ;  and  b  as  the  personal  designation  of  the  third  person  of 
the  trinity,  who  is  called  Spirit  of  God,  or  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  or  of  Jesus,  or  of  the  Son 
of  God,  Acts  xvi.,  6,  7  ;  Rom.  viii.,  9  ;  2  Cor.  iii.,  17  ;  Gal,  iv., 
6  ;  Phil,  i.,  19  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  11. 

72.  Why  is  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity  called  the  Spirit  ? 

As  the  one  indivisible  divine  essence  which  is  common  to  each 
of  the  divine  persons  alike  is  spiritual,  this  term,  as  the  personal 
designation  of  the  third  person,  can  not  be  intended  to  signify  the 
fact  that  he  is  a  Spirit  as  to  his  essence,  but  rather  to  mark 
what  is  peculiar  to  his  person,  i.  e.,  his  personal  relation  to  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  and  the  peculiar  mode  of  his  operation  ad 
extra.  As  the  reciprocal  epithets  Father  and  Son  are  used  to  in- 
dicate, so  far  forth,  the  mutual  relations  of  the  first  and  second 
persons,  so  the  epithets.  Spirit,  Spirit  of  God,  Spirit  of  the  Son, 
Spirit  which  proccedeth  from  the  Father,  are  applied  to  the  third 
person  to  indicate,  so  far  forth,  the  relation  of  the  third  person 
to  the  first  and  second. 

73.  Why  is  he  called  Holy  Spirit  ? 

As  holiness  is  an  attribute  of  the  divine  essence,  and  the  glory 
equally  of  Father,  Sou,  and  Holy  Ghost,,  it  can  not  be  applied  in 


154  THE   HOLY    TRINITY. 

any  preeminent  sense  as  a  personal  characteristic  to  the  third 
person.  It  indicates,  therefore,  the  peculiar  nature  of  his  opera- 
tion. He  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit  because  he  is  the  author  of 
holiness  throughout  the  universe.  As  the  Son  is  also  styled 
Logos,  or  God,  the  Kevealer,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God,  the 
Operator,  the  end  and  glory  of  whose  work  in  the  moral  world  is 
holiness,  as  in  the  physical  world  beauty. 

74.  Why  is  lie  called  the  Spirit  of  God  ? 

This  phrase  expresses  his  divinity,  his  relation  to  the  Godhead 
as  himself  God,  1  Cor.  ii,,  11  ;  his  intimate  personal  relation  to 
the  Father  as  his  consubstantial  spirit  proceeding  from  him,  John 
XV,,  26  ;  and  the  fact  that  he  is  the  divine  Spirit,  which  pro- 
ceeding from  God  operates  upon  the  creature,  Ps.  civ.,  30  ;  1  Pet. 
iv.,  14. 

75.  Why  is  the  third  person  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ  ? 

See  Gal.  iv.,  6  ;  Kom.  viii.,  9  ;  Phil,  i.,  19  ;  1  Peter  i.,  11. 
As  the  form  of  expression  is  identical  in  the  several  phrases.  Spirit 
of  God,  and  Spirit  of  the  Son,  and  as  the  Scriptures,  with  one 
exception,  John  xv.,  26,  uniformly  predicate  every  thing  of  the 
relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Son,  that  they  predicate  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Spirit  to  the  Father,  it  appears  evident  that  he  is 
called  Spirit  of  the  Son  for  the  same  reason  that  he  is  called 
Spirit  of  God. 

This  phrase  also  additionally  sets  forth  the  oflScial  relation 
which  the  Spirit  in  his  agency  in  the  work  of  redemption  sustains 
to  the  Godman,  in  taking  of  his,  and  showing  them  to  us,  John 
xvi.,  14. 

76.  What  is  meant  by  the  theological  phrase,  Procession  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

Theologians  intend  by  this  phrase  to  designate  the  relation 
which  the  third  person  sustains  to  the  first  and  second,  wherein 
by  an  eternal  and  necessary,  i.  e.,  not  voluntary,  act  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  their  whole  identical  divine  essence,  without  alien- 
ation, division,  or  change,  is  communicated  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 

77.  What  distinction  do  theologians  make  hetioeen  ^^proces- 
sion" and  "generation  ?" 


ETERNAL   PROCESSION   OF   THE   SPIRIT.  155 

As  this  entire  subject  infinitely  transcends  the  measure  of  our 
faculties,  we  can  do  no  tiling  further  than  classify  and  contrast 
those  predicates  which  inspiration  has  applied  to  the  relation  of 
Father  and  Son  with  those  which  it  has  applied  to  the  relation 
of  the  Spirit  to  the  Father  and  Son. 

Thus  Turrettin,  Vol.  L,  L.  3.,  Q.  31.  They  differ,  "  1st.  As 
to  source,  the  Son  emanates  from  the  Father  only,  but  the  Spirit 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son  at  the  same  time.  2d.  As  to  mode. 
The  Son  emanates  in  the  way  of  generation,  which  affects  not 
only  personality,  but  similitude,  on  account  of  which  the  Son  is 
called  the  image  of  the  Father,  and  in  consequence  of  which  he 
receives  the  property  of  communicating  the  same  essence  to  an- 
other person  ;  but  the  Spirit,  by  the  way  of  spiration,  which 
effects  only  personality,  and  in  consequence  of  which  the  person 
who  proceeds  does  not  receive  the  proj^erty  of  communicating  the 
same  essence  to  another  person.  3d.  As  to  order.  The  Son  is 
second  person,  and  the  Spirit  third,  and  though  both  are  eternal, 
without  beginning  or  succession,  yet,  in  our  mode  of  conception, 
generation  precedes  procession." 

"  The  schoolmen  vainly  attempted  to  found  a  distinction  be- 
tween generation  and  spiration  upon  the  different  02)crations  of 
the  divine  intellect  and  the  divine  will.  They  say  the  Son  was 
generated  ^9er  modum  inteUectus,  whence  he  is  called  the  Word 
of  God.  The  Spirit  proceeds  per  modum  voluntatis,  whence  he 
is  called  Love." 

78.  What  is  the  Scripture  ground  for  this  doctrine  ? 

What  we  remarked  above  (question  53,)  concerning  the  com- 
mon theological  definition  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son, 
holds  true  also  with  reference  to  the  common  definition  of  the  eter- 
nal procession  of  the  Holy  G-host,  viz.,  that  in  order  to  make  the 
method  of  the  divine  unity  in  trinity  more  apparent,  theologians 
have  pressed  the  idea  of  derivation  and  subordination  in  the  order 
of  personal  subsistence  too  far.  This  ground  is  at  once  sacred 
and  mysterious.  The  points  given  by  Scripture  are  not  to  be 
pressed  nor  speculated  upon,  but  received  and  confessed  nakedly. 

The  data  of  inspiration  are  simply  as  follows  :  1st.  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  three  divine  persons,  possess  from  eternity 
tlie  one  whole  identical,  indivisible,  unchangeable  essence.     2d. 


156  THE   HOLY   TRINITY. 

The  Father  from  his  characteristic  personal  name,  and  the  order 
in  which  his  name  uniformly  occurs  in  Scri^jture,  and  from  the 
fact  that  the  Son  is  called  his  and  his  only  begotten,  and  that  the 
Spirit  is  called  his,  the  one  proceeding  from  him,  and  from  the  order 
of  his  manifestation  and  operation  ad  extra,  is  evidently  in  some 
way  first  in  order  of  personal  subsistence  relatively  to  the  Son  and 
Spirit.  3d.  For  the  same  reason  (see  below,  question  80)  the  Son, 
in  the  order  of  personal  subsistence,  is  before  the  Spirit.  4th. 
What  the  real  nature  of  these  distinctions  in  the  order  of  per- 
sonal substance  may  be  is  made  known  to  us  only  so  far,  (1.)  that 
it  involves  no  distinction  as  to  time,  since  all  are  alike  eternal.  (2.) 
It  does  not  depend  upon  any  voluntary  action,  for  that  would 
make  the  second  person  dependent  upon  the  first,  and  the  third  ujjon 
the  first  and  second,  while  they  are  all  "equal  in  power  and  glory." 
(3.)  It  is  such  a  relation  that  the  second  person  is  eternally  only 
begotten  Son  of  the  first,  and  the  third  is  eternally  the  Spirit  of 
the  first  and  second. 

79.  What  was  the  difference  hetioeen  the  Greek  and  Latin 
churches  on  this  doctrine  ? 

The  famous  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  while  so  accurately 
defining  the  doctrine  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Son,  left  the  testi- 
mony concerning  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  vague  form  in  which  it 
stood  in  the  ancient  creed,  "  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  But  the 
heresy  of  Macedonius,  who  denied  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
having  sprung  up  in  the  mean  time,  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 
A.  D.  381,  completed  the  testimony  of  the  Nicene  Creed  thus,  "  I 
believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord,  the  Author  of  Life,  who 
proceedeth  from  the  Father." 

There  subsequently  arose  a  controversy  upon  the  question, 
whether  the  Scriptures  do  or  do  not  represent  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
sustaining  precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  Son  that  he  does  to 
the  Father,  This  the  Latins  generally  affirmed,  and  at  the  third 
ecclesiastical  assembly  at  Toledo,  A.  D,  589,  they  added  the  word 
filioque  (and  the  vSon)  to  the  Latin  version  of  the  Constantinopol- 
itan  Creed,  making  the  clause  read  "  Credimus  in  Spiritum  Sanc- 
tum qui  a  Patre  Filioque  procedit."  The  Greek  church,  violently 
opposed  this,  and  to  this  day  reject  it.  For  a  short  time  they 
were  satisfied  with  the  compromise,  "  The  Spirit  proceeding  from 


ETERNAL  PROCESSION  OF  THE   SPIRIT.  157 

the  Father  through  the  Son/'  which  was  finally  rejected  by  both 
parties.  The  Constantinoijolitan  Creed,  as  amended  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Toledo,  is  the  one  now  adopted  by  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
recognized  by  all  Protestants,  currently  bearing  the  title  of 
"  Nicene  Creed." 

80.  Hoiv  may  it  he  proved  that,  as  far  as  revealed,  the  Spirit 
sustains  precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  Son  which  he  does  to 
the  Father  ? 

The  epithet  "  Spirit"  is  the  characteristic  personal  designation 
of  the  third  person.  Whatever  is  revealed  of  his  eternal  and 
necessary  personal  relation  to  either  the  Father  or  the  Son  is  in- 
dicated by  this  word.  Yet  he  is  called  the  Spirit  of  the  Son,  as 
well  as  the  Spirit  of  the  Father.  He  possesses  the  same  identical 
essence  of  the  Son  as  of  the  Father.  The  Son  sends  and  operates 
through  the  Spirit  as  the  Father  does.  Wherever  their  Spirit  is 
there  both  Father  and  Son  are  revealed,  and  there  they  exercise 
their  power. — John  xiv.,  16,  26;  xv.,  26;  xvi.,  7.  With  the  sin- 
gle exception  of  the  phrase,  "  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father," 
(John  XV.,  26,)  the  ScriiDtures  apply  precisely  the  same  predicates 
to  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Son  that  they  do  to  his  rela- 
tion to  the  Father, 

81.  What  office  does  the  Spirit  discharge  in  the  economy  of 
redemption  ? 

In  the  economy  of  redemption,  as  universally  in  all  the  actings 
of  the  Grodhead  upon  the  creature,  God  the  Son  is  the  revealed 
God,  God  as  known,  and  God  the  Sj)irit  is  that  divine  jjerson 
who  exerts  his  energy  immediately  upon  and  in  the  creature. 
For  a  more  detailed  answer  see  Chapter  XXI.,  on  "  The  Media- 
torial Office  of  Christ,"  question  9. 

(III.)  TlIIO  TERSONAL  PROPERTIES  PECULIAR  TO  EACH  OF  THE 
THREE  PERSONS  OF  THE  GoDHEAD,  AND  THEIR  ORDER  OF  OPER- 
ATION   AD    EXTRA. 

82.  What  is  the  theological  meaning  of  the  word  property  as 
applied  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 

The  attributes  of  God  are  the  perfections  of  the  divine  essence, 


158  THE   HOLY    TRINITY. 

and  therefore  common  to  each  of  the  three  persons,  who  are  "  the 
same  in  substance,"  and  therefore  "  equal  in  power  and  glory." 
These  have  been  discussed  under  Chapter  VII.  The  properties 
of  cadi  divine  person,  on  the  other  hand,  are  those  peculiar  modes 
of  personal  subsistence  whereby  each  divine  person  is  constituted 
as  such,  and  that  peculiar  order  of  operation  whereby  each  per- 
son is  distinguished  from  the  others. 

As  far  as  these  are  revealed  to  us  the  personal  properties  of 
the  Father  are  as  follows  :  He  is  begotten  by  none,  and  proceeds 
from  none  ;  he  is  the  Father  of  the  Son,  liaving  begotten  him 
from  eternity ;  the  Spirit  proceeds  from  him  and  is  his  Spirit. 
Thus  he  is  the  first  in  order  and  in  operation,  sending  and  operat- 
ing through  the  Son  and  Spirit; 

Tlie  personal  properties  of  the  Sou  are  as  follows  :  He  is  the 
Son,  from  eternity  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father.  The  Spirit 
is  the  Spirit  of  the  Son  even  as  he  is  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  ; 
he  is  sent  by  the  Father,  whom  he  reveals  ;  he,  even  as  the  Fa- 
ther, sends  and  operates  through  the  Spirit. 

The  personal  properties  of  the  Spirit  are  as  follows  :  He  is  the 
Spirit  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  from  eternity  proceeding  from 
them  ;  he  is  sent  by  the  Father  and  the  Son,  they  operating 
through  him  ;  he  operates  immediately  upon  the  creature. 

83.  What  kind  of  subordination  did  the  early  ivriters  at- 
tribute to  the  second  and  third  person  in  relation  to  the  first  ? 

They  held,  as  above  shown,  that  the  eternal  generation  of  the 
Son  by  the  Father,  and  the  eternal  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son  involved  in  both  instances  the  deri- 
vation of  essence.  They  illustrated  their  idea  of  this  eternal  and 
necessary  act  of  communication  by  the  example  of  a  luminous 
body,  which  necessarily  radiates  light  the  whole  period  of  its  ex- 
istence. Thus  the  Son  is  defined  in  the  words  of  the  Nicene 
Creed,  "  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light."  Thus  as  the  radiance  of 
the  sun  is  coeval  with  its  existence,  and  of  the  same  essonce  as  its 
source,  by  this  illustration  they  designed  to  signify  their  belief 
in  the  identity  and  consequent  equality  of  the  divine  persons  as  to 
essence,  and  the  relative  subordination  of  the  second  to  the  first, 
and  of  the  third  to  the  first  and  second  as  to  personal  subsistence 
and  consequent  order  of  operation. 


ORDER   OF   PERSONS.  159 

84.  What  is  expressed  by  the  use  of  the  terms  first,  second, 
and  thii-d  in  reference  to  the  persons  of  the  Trinity. 

These  terms  are  severally  applied  to  the  persons  of  the  Trinity 
because,  1st.  The  Scriptures  uniformly  state  their  names  in  this 
order.  2d.  The  personal  designations,  Father  and  Son,  and 
Spirit  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  indicate  this  order  of  per- 
sonal subsistence.  3d.  Their  respective  modes  of  operation  ad 
extra  is  always  in  this  order.  The  Father  sends  and  operates 
through  the  Son,  and  the  Father  and  Son  send  and  operate 
through  the  Spirit.  The  Scriptures  never  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly indicate  the  reverse  order. 

As  to  the  outward  bearing  of  the  Godhead  upon  the  creature 
it  would  appear,  that  the  Father  is  revealed  only  as  he  is  seen 
in  the  Son,  who  is  the  eternal  Logos,  or  divine  Word,  the  ex- 
press image  of  the  Father's  person.  "  No  man  hath  seen  God 
at  any  time,  the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  he  hath  declared  him." — John  i.,  18.  And  the  Father 
and  Son  act  immediately  wpon  the  creature  only  through  the  Spirit. 

"  The  Father  is  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  invisible,  with- 
out form,  whom  no  man  hath  seen  or  can  see." 

"  The  Son  is  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  manifested." 

"  The  Spirit  is  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  acting  imme- 
diately upon  the  creature,  and  thus  making  manifest  the  Father 
in  the  image  of  the.  Son,  and  through  the  power  of  the  Spirit." — 
'•'Higher  Christian  Life,"  by  Rev.  W.  E.  Boardman,  p.  105. 

85.  Hoiv  can  the  assumption  of  personal  distinctions  in  the 
Godhead  he  reconciled  loith  the  divine  unity  ? 

Although  this  tripersonal  constitution  of  the  Godhead  is  alto- 
gether beyond  the  capacity  of  reason,  and  is  ascertained  to  us 
only  through  a  supernatural  revelation,  there  is  evidently  no  con- 
tradiction in  the  two-fold  proposition,  that  God  is  one,  and  yet 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  that  one  God.  They  arc  one 
in  one  sense,  and  tliree-fold  in  an  entirely  different  sense.  The 
eternal,  self-existent,  divine  essence,  constituting  all  those  divine 
perfections  called  attributes  of  God  is,  in  the  same  sense  and  de- 
gree, common  to  all  the  persons.  In  this  sense  they  are  one. 
But  this  divine  essence  exists  eternally  as  Father,  and  as  Son, 


160  THE    HOLY   TRINITY. 

and  as  Holy  Ghost,  distinguished  by  personal  properties.  In  this 
sense  they  are  three.  We  believe  this,  not  because  we  under- 
stand it,  but  because  thus  God  has  revealed  himself. 

86.  Hoio  can  the  separate  incarnation  of  the  Son  he  reconciled 
with  the  divine  unity  ? 

The  Son  is  identical  with  the  Father  and  Spirit  as  to  essence, 
but  distinct  from  them  as  to  personal  subsistence.  In  the  incar- 
nation, the  divine  essence  of  the  Son  was  not  made  man,  but  as  a 
divine  person  he  entered  into  a  personal  relation  with  the 
human  nature  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  This  did  not  constitute 
a  new  j^erson,  but  merely  introduced  a  new  element  into  his  eter- 
nal person.  It  was  the  personal  union  of  the  Son  with  a  human 
soul  and  body,  and  not  any  change  either  in  the  divine  essence, 
or  in  the  personal  relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  or  the  Spirit. 

87.  What  is  Arianism  ? 

This  system  was  first  advocated  by  Arius,  who  lived  during 
the  first  half  of  the  fgurthc.entury.  He  maintained  that  the  God- 
head  consists  of  one  eternal  person,  who  in  the  beginning,  before 
all  worlds,  created  in  his  own  image  a  super-jingelicjbeiug,  his 
only  begotten  Son,  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God,  by 
whom  also  he  made  the  worlds.  The  first  and  greatest  creature 
thus  created,  through  the  Son  of  God,  was  the  Holy  Ghost.  In 
the  fullness  of  time  this  Son  became  incarnate  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

88.  What  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Semi-Arians  ? 

This  party  was  so  called  as  occupying  middle  ground  between 
the  Arians  and  the  Orthodox.  They  held  that  the  absolute,  self- 
oxistent  God  was  one  person,  but  that  the  Son  was  a  divine  per- 
son of  a  glorious  essence,  like  to  (diioiovaiov)  but  not  identical 
with  (diwovaiov)  that  of  the  Father,  and  from  eternity  begot- 
ten by  the  Father  by  a  free  exercise  of  will  and  j^ower,  and 
therefore  subordinate  to  and  dependant  upon  liim.  This  party 
was  largely  represented  at  the  Council  of  Nice. 

It  appears  that  some  of  the  Semi-Arians  agreed  with  the 
Arians  in  regarding  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  first  and  most  glorious 
creature  of  the  Son,  but  that  the  majority  regarded  the  words 


HERETICAL    OPINIONS.  161 

"  Holy  Spirit,"  as  significant  of  a  divine  energy,  or  as  a  synonyme 
of  the  word  God. — See  Ncander's  Ch.  Hist.,  Torrey's  translation, 
Vol.  II.,  pp.  419,  420. 

89.  What  is  Sahellianism  ? 

This  term  represents  the  opinion  that  Grod  is  one  single  per- 
son as  well  as  one  single  essence.  The  term  Father  is  the  name 
appropriated  to  this  one  person,  when  considered  in  his  incom- 
prehensihle  greatness,  and  in  his  absolute  sovereignty.  The  term 
Son  is  the  name  appropriated  to  the  same  person  when  conceived 
of  as  revealing  himself,  and  as  becoming  incarnate  and  dwelling 
among  men.  The  term  Holy  Ghost  is  the  name  applied  to  him 
when  conceived  of  as  operating  immediately  upon  the  creature  in 
his  works  of  creation,  providence  or  grace.  The  more  significant 
and  generic  title  of  the  sects  holding  this  opinion  is  Monarchians, 
or  those  maintaining  the  absolute  unity  of  the  Godhead,  personal 
as  well  as  essential.  They  were  also  called  Patripassians,  because 
they  believed  that  the  one  divine  person,  called  Father,  as  well 
as  Son  or  Holy  Ghost  was  united  to  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who 
suffered  on  the  cross.  This  system  was  taught,  with  special  modi- 
fications, by  several  heretical  leaders  of  the  early  church,  first  by 
Praxeas,  a  confessor  at  Kome,  at  the  end  of  the  second  century. 
It  has,  however,  currently  born  the  name  of  Sabellius,  an  African 
bishop  who  lived  during  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  The 
Swedenborgians  of  the  present  day  are  SabeUians. 

90.  What  is  Tritheism  ? 

This  opinion,  the  extreme  opposite  of  Sahellianism,  is  said  to 
have  been  first  advocated  by  John  Ascusnage,  a  Syrian  philoso- 
pher, who  flourished  during  the  sixth  century.  He  taught  that 
the  Godhead  is  constituted  of  three  beings,  distinct  in  essence  as 
well  as  in  person.  Hence  there  are  three  Gods,  united  not  in 
being,  but  only  in  the  most  intimate  fellowship  of  counsel  and 
will. 

91.  What  is  Socinianism  ? 

This  system  regards  God  the  Father  as  tlie  only  God,  one  in 
person  as  well  as  essence,  and  Jesus  Christ  as  a  mere  man,  though 
an  inspired  prophet,  and  called  Son  of  God  only  on  account  of 
liis  miraculous  conception  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  ;  and  the 


162  THE    HOLY   TRINITY. 

term  Holy  Spirit  only  as  another  name  for  the  one  God,  the  Fa- 
ther. The  more  common  and  significant  title  of  this  system  is 
Unitarianism.  It  takes  its  designation  of  Socinianisra  from  its 
most  successful  promulgators  Ijoelius  and  Faustus  Socinus,  uncle 
and  nephew,  wlio  flourished  during  the  latter  half  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  Italians  by  birth,  the  uncle  died  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Keformed  Church  of  Zurich,  a.  d.,  15B2,  but  the  nephew,  ulti- 
mately joining  the  Unitarians  of  Poland,  gave  the  final  form  to 
their  religious  system,  and  from  his  writings  the  Racovian  Cate- 
chism was  principally  compiled,  which  remains  to  this  day  the 
most  authoritative  exposition  of  the  Unitarian  faith. — See  Mos- 
heim's  Ch.  Hist.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  235. 

92.  By  what  considerations  may  it  he  sJioion  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  a  fundamental  element  of  the  Gospel  ? 

It  is  not  claimed  that  the  refinements  of  theological  specula- 
tions upon  this  subject  are  essential  points  of  faith,  but  simply 
that  it  is  essential  to  salvation  to ,  believe  in  the  three  persons  in 
one  Godhead,  as  they  are  revealed  to  us  in  the  Scriptures.  1st. 
The  only  true  God  is  that  God  who  has  revealed  himself  to  us  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  very  end  of  the  gospel  is  to  bring  us  to 
the  knowledge  of  that  God  precisely  in  the  aspect  in  which  he  has 
revealed  himself.  Every  other  conception  of  God  presents  a  false 
god  to  the  mind  and  conscience.  There  can  be  no  mutual  toler- 
ation without  treason.  Socinians,  Arians,  and  Trinitarians  wor- 
ship different  Gods. 

2d.  The  Scriptures  explicitly  assert  that  the  knowledge  of 
this  true  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  whom  he  hath  sent  is  eternal 
life,  and  that  it  is  necessary  to  honor  the  Son  even  as  we  honor 
the  Father. — John  v.,  23  ;  xiv.,  1  ;  xvii.,  3  ;  1  John  ii.,  23  ;  v.,  20. 
3d.  In  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  Christian  church  we  are  baptized 
into  the  name  of  every  several  person  of  the  trinity,  Matt,  xxviii.,  19. 

4th.  The  whole  plan  of  redemption  in  all  its  parts  is  founded 
upon  it.  Justification,  sanctification,  adoption,  and  all  else  that 
makes  the  gospel  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  unto  salvation, 
can  be  understood  only  in  the  light  of  this  fundamental  truth. 

5th.  As  an  historical  fact  it  is  beyond  dispute  that  in  whatever 
church  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  has  been  abandoned  or  obscured, 
every  other  characteristic  doctrine  of  the  gospel  has  gone  with  it 


C  HAP  T  E  R  IX. 

THE  DECREES  OF  GOD  IN  GENERAL. 

1.  What  are  the  decrees  of  God  ? 

See  Con.  of  Faith,  cliap.  iii.,  Larger  Cat.,  Q.  12,  and  Shorter 
Cat.,  Q.  7. 

The  decree  of  God  is  his  eternal,  unchangeable,  holy,  wise  and 
sovereign  Eurnoge,  comprehending  at  once  all  things  that  ever 
were  or  wilTbem  their  causes,  conditions,  successions  and  rela- 
tions, and  determining  their  certain  futurition.  The  several  con- 
tents of  this  one  eternal  purpose  are,  because  of  the  limitation  of 
our  faculties,  necessarily  conceived  of  by  us  in  partial  aspects,  and 
in  logical  relations,  and  are  therefore  styled  Decrees. 

2.  Hoio  are  the  acts  of  God  classified,  and  to  luhich  class  do 
theologians  refer  the  decrees  ? 

All  conceivable  divine  actions  may  be  classified  as  follows  : 

1st.  Those  actions  which  are  immanent  and  intrinsic,  belons:- 
ing  essentially  to  the  perfection  of  the  divine  nature,  and  which 
bear  no  reference  whatever  to  any  existence  without  the  Godhead. 
These  are  the  acts  of  eternal  and  necessary  generation,  whereby 
the  Son  springs  from  the  Father,  and  of  eternal  and  necessary 
procession  whereby  the  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  and  all  those  actions  whatsoever  involved  in  the  mutual 
society  of  the  divine  persons. 

2d.  Those  actions  which  are  extrinsic  and  transient,  i.  e., 
those  free  actions  proceeding  from  God  and  terminating  upon  the 
creature,  occurring  successively  in  time,  as  God's  acts  in  creation, 
providence  and  grace. 

3d.  The  thud  class  are  like  the  first  inasmuch  as  they  are  in- 
trinsic and  immanent,  essential  to  the  perfection  of  the  divine 


164  THE   DECREES   OF    GOD   IN    GENERAL. 

nature  and  permanent  states  of  the  divine  mind,  but  they  differ, 
on  the  other  hand,  from  the  first  class,  inasmuch  as  they  have  re- 
spect to  the  whole  dependent  creation  exterior  to  the  Godhead. 
These  are  the  eternal  and  immutable  decrees  of  God  respecting 
all  beings  and  events  whatsoever  exterior  to  himself. 

3.  Hoiv  may  it  he  proved  that  the  decrees  of  God  are 
eternal  ? 

1st.  As  God  is  infinite,  he  is  necessarily  eternal  and  unchange- 
able, from  eternity  infinite  in  wisdom  and  knowledge,  and  abso- 
lutely independent  in  thought  and  purpose  of  every  creature. 
There  can  never  be  any  addition  to  his  wisdom,  nor  surprise  to 
his  foreknowledge,  nor  resistance  to  his  power,  and  therefore  there 
never  can  be  any  occasion  to  reverse  or  modify  that  infinitely  wise 
and  righteous  purpose  which,  from  the  perfection  of  his  nature, 
he  formed  from  eternity. 

2d.  Scripture  directly  affirms  it. — Acts  xv.,  18,  (air'  diCyvoi;^ 
from  eternity,)  Matt,  xxv.,  34 ;  Eph.  i.,  4  ;  2  Thes.  ii.,  13  ;  2 
Tim.  i.,  9  ;  ■  1  Cor.  ii.,  7.  Time  is  limited  duration  measm'ed  by 
succession,  and  therefore  commenced  at  the  creation;  ^'before  the 
world,"  therefore,  means  "  before  time,"  or  from  eternity  ; 
"  ^ternitas  est  una,  individua,  et  tota  simul." 

4.  How  may  it  be  proved  from  Scripture  that  the  decrees  of 
God  relate  to  all  events  ? 

Eph.  i.,  10,  H  ;  Acts  xv.,  18  ;  xvii.,  26  ;  Job  xiv.,  5  ;  Isa. 
xlvi.,  10.  Even  the  free  acts  of  men,  (Eph.  ii.,  10,)  even  their 
wicked  actions. — Acts  ii.,  23  ;  iv.,  27,  28  ;  Ps.  Ixxvi.,  10  ;  Prov. 
xvi.,  4.  Also  what  men  call  accidental  events. — Prov.  xvi.,  33, 
compare  with  Acts  xv.,  18.  All  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth. — 
Dan.  iv.,  34,  35. 

5.  Prove  the  universality  of  God's  decrees  from  providence. 

It  follows  from  the  eternity,  immutability,  and  infinite  wis- 
dom, foreknowledge,  and  power  of  God,  that  his  temporal  work- 
ing in  providence  must  in  all  things  proceed  according  to  his 
eternal  purpose. — Eph.  i.,  11,  and  Acts  xv.,  18.  But  both  Scrip- 
ture and  reason  alike  teach  us  that  the  providential  government 
of  God  comprehends  all  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth  as  a  whole. 


ETERNAL   AND   UNIVERSAL.  165 

and  every  event  in  detail. — Prov.  xvi.,  33  ;    Dan.  iv.,  34,  35  ; 
Matt.  X.,  29,  30. 

6.  Prove  this  doctrine  from  prophecy. 

God  has  in  the  Scriptures  foretold  the  certain  occurre'nce  of 
many  events,  including  the  free  actions  of  men,  which  have  after- 
wards surely  come  to  pass.  Now  the  ground  of  prophecy  is  fore- 
knowledge, and  the  foundation  of  the  foreknowledge  of  an  event 
as  certainly  future,  is  God's  decree  that  made  it  future.  The 
eternal  immutahility  of  the  decree  is  the  only  foundation  of  the 
infallibility  either  of  the  foreknowledge  or  of  the  prophecy.  But 
if  God  has  decreed  certain  future  events,  he  must  also  have  in- 
cluded in  that  decree  all  of  their  causes,  conditions,  coordinates, 
and  consequences.  No  event  is  isolated  ;  to  make  one  certainly 
future  implies  the  determination  of  the  whole  concatenation  of 
causes  and  effects  which  constitute  the  universe. 

7.  What  reasons  may  he  assigned  for  contemplating  the  de- 
crees of  God  as  one,  all-comprehensive  purpose  ? 

1st.  As  above  shown,  the  decrees  of  God  are  eternal  and  im- 
mutable. 2d.  No  event  is  isolated.  To  decree  one  implies  the 
foreordination  of  the  whole  concatenation  of  events  which  consti- 
tute the  universe.  As  all  events  constitute  one  system,  they  must 
have  been  determined  in  one  purpose.  3d.  God  decrees  all  things 
as  they  actually  occur,  i.  e.,  as  produced  by  causes,  and  as  de- 
pending upon  conditions,  etc.  The  same  decree,  therefore,  which 
determines  the  event,  determines  it  as  produced  by  its  cause,  and 
as  depending  upon  its  conditions. 

Most  of  the  mistakes  which  heterodox  speculators  have  made, 
with  reference  to  the  nature  of  God's  decrees,  arise  from  the  ten- 
dency of  the  human  mind  to  confine  attention  to  one  fragment  of 
God's  eternal  purpose,  and  to  regard  it  as  isolated  from  the  rest. 
This  decree  never  determined  the  certain  occurrence  of  any  single 
event  as  separated  from  the  second  causes  which  produce  it,  but 
it  at  once,  and  as  a  whole,  determines  the  certain  occurrence  of  all 
things  that  ever  come  to  pass,  the  causes  as  well  as  their  effects, 
the  condition  as  well  as  that  which  is  suspended  upon  it,  and  all 
in  the  very  relations  in  which  they  actually  occur. 


166  THE    DECREES   OF   GOD   IN   GENERAL. 

8.  In  what  sense  are  the  decrees  of  God  free  ? 

The  decrees  of  Grod  are  free  in  the  sense  that  in  decreeing  he 
was  solely  actuated  by  his  own  infinitely  wise,  righteous,  and 
benevolent  good  pleasure.  He  has  always  chosen  as  he  pleased, 
and  he  has  always  pleased  consistently  with  the  perfection  of  his 
nature. 

9.  In  what  sense  are  the  decrees  of  God  sovereign  ? 

They  are  sovereign  in  the  sense  that  while  they  determine 
absolutely  whatever  occurs  without  God,  their  whole  reason  and 
motive  is  within  the  divine  nature,  and  they  are  neither  sug- 
gested nor  occasioned  by,  nor  conditioned  upon  anything  whatso- 
ever without  him. 

10.  What  is  the  distinction  between  absolute  and  conditional 
decrees  ? 

An  absolute  decree  is  one  which,  while  it  may  include  con- 
ditions, is  suspended  upon  no  condition,  i.  e.,  it  makes  the  event 
decreed,  of  whatever  kind,  whether  of  mechanical  necessity  or  of 
voluntary  agency,  certainly  future,  together  with  all  the  causes 
and  conditions,  of  whatever  nature,  upon  which  the  event  depends. 

A  conditional  decree  is  one  which  decrees  that  an  event  shall 
happen  upon  the  condition  that  some  other  event,  possible  but 
imcertain  (not  decreed),  shall  actually  occur. 

The  Socinians  denied  that  the  free  actions  of  men,  being  in- 
trinsically uncertain,  are  the  objects  of  knowledge,  and  therefore 
affiiTned  that  they  are  not  foreknown  by  God.  They  held  that 
God  decreed  absolutely  to  create  the  human  race,  and  after  Adam 
sinned  lie  decreed  absolutely  to  save  all  repenting  and  believing 
sinnt^rs,  yet  that  he  decreed  nothing  concerning  the  sinning  nor  the 
salvation  of  individual  men. 

The  Arminians,  admitting  that  God  certainly  foreknows  the 
acts  of  free  agents  as  well  as  all  other  events,  maintain  that  he 
absolutely  decreed  to  create  man,  and  foreseeing  that  man  would 
sin  he  absolutely  decreed  to  provide  a  salvation  for  all,  and  actu- 
ally to  save  all  that  repent  and  believe,  but  that  he  conditionally 
decreed  to  save  individual  men  on  the  condition,  foreseen  but  not 
foreordained,  of  their  flxith  and  obedience. 


NOT   CONDITIONAL.  167 

11.  What  are  the  objections  to  attributing  conditional  decrees 
to  God  ? 

Calvinists  admit  that  the  all  comprehensive  decree  of  God  de- 
termines all  events  according  to  their  inherent  nature,  the  actions 
of  free  agents  as  free,  and  the  operation  of  necessary  causes,  neces- 
sarily. It  also  comprehends  the  whole  system  of  causes  and  effects 
of  every  kind  ;  of  the  motives  and  conditions  of  free  actions,  as 
well  as  the  necessary  causes  of  necessary  events.  God  decreed  sal-l 
vation  upon  the  condition  of  faith,  yet  in  the  very  same  act  he  de- 
creed the  faith  of  those  persons  whose  salvation  he  has  determined. 
"  Whom  he  did  jyredestinate,  them  he  also  called."  Thus  his 
decree  from  the  beginning  embraced  and  provided  for  the  free 
agency  of  man,  as  well  as  the  regular  procedures  of  nature,  ac- 
cording to  established  laws.  Thus  also  his  covenants,  or  con- 
ditional promises,  which  he  makes  in  time,  are  in  all  their  parts 
the  execution  of  his  eternal  purpose,  which  comprehended  the 
promise,  and  the  condition  in  their  several  places  as  means  to  the 
end.  But  that  the  decree  of  God  can  be  regarded  as  suspended 
upon  conditions  which  are  not  themselves  determined  by  the  decree 
is  evidently  impossible. 

1st.  This  decree  has  been  shown  above  (questions  3-7)  to  be 
eternal  and  all  comprehensive.  A  condition  implies  liability  to 
change.  The  whole  universe  forming  one  system,  if  one  part  is 
contingent  the  whole  must  be  contingent,  for  if  one  condition 
failed  the  whole  concatenation  of  causes  and  effects  would  be  de- 
ranged. If  the  Arminian  should  rejoin  that  although  God  did 
not  foreordain  the  free  acts  of  men,  yet  he  infallibly  foreknew 
and  provided  for  them,  and  therefore  his  plans  can  not  fail ;  then 
the  Calvinist  replies  that  if  God  foresaw  that  a  given  man,  in 
given  circumstances,  would  act  at  a  given  juncture  in  a  certain  way, 
then  God  in  decreeing  to  create  that  very  man  and  place  him  in. 
those  very  circumstances,  at  that  very  juncture,  did  foreordain  the 
certain  futurition  of  that  very  event,  and  of  all  its  consequences. 
That  God's  decree  is  immutable  and  does  not  depend  upon  uncer- 
tain conditions,  is  proved  (1.)  from  its  eternity,  (2.)  from  the 
direct  assertions  of  Scripture. — Is.  xiv.,  24,  27  ;  xlvi.,  10  ;  Ps. 
xxxiii.,  11  ;  Prov.  xix.,  21  ;  Rom.  ix.,  11  ;  Eph.  iii.,  11. 

2d.  The  foreknowledge  of  God,  as  Arminians  admit,  is  eternal 
and  certain,  and  embraces  all  events,  free  as  well  as  necessar}'. 


168  THE   DECREES   OF   GOD   IN   GENERAL. 

But,  (1.)  as  shown  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  this  foreknowl- 
edge involves  foreordination,  and  (2.)  certainty  in  the  foreknowl- 
edge im})lies  certainty  in  the  event ;  certainty  implies  determina- 
tion ;  determination  leaves  us  to  choose  between  the  decree  of 
an  infinitely  wise,  righteous,  and  benevolent  God,  and  a  blind 
fate. 

3d.  A  conditional  decree  would  subvert  the  sovereignty  of 
God  and  make  him,  as  to  the  administration  of  his  whole  govern- 
ment and  the  execution  of  all  his  plans,  dependent  upon  the  un- 
controlable  actions  of  his  own  creatures.  But  the  decrees  of  God 
are  sovereign. — Isa.  xl.,  13,  14  ;  Dan.  iv.,  35  ;    Eom.  ix.,  15-18. 

4th.  His  decree  is  declared  to  depend  upon  his  own  "  good 
pleasure,"  and  the  "  counsel  of  his  own  will." — Eph.  i.,  5,  11  ; 
Rom.  ix.,  11  ;  Matt,  xi.,  25,  26. 

5th.  The  decree  of  God  includes  the  means  and  conditions. — 
2  Thes.  ii.,  13;  1  Pet.  i.  2;  Eph.  i.,  4. 

6th.  His  decree  absolutely  determines  the  free  actions  of 
men. — Acts  iv.,  27,  28  ;  Eph.  ii.,  10. 

7th.  God  himself  works  in  his  people  that  faith  and  obedience 
which  are  called  the  conditions  of  their  salvation. — Phil,  ii.,  13  ; 
Eph.  ii.,  8  ;  2  Tim.  ii.,  25. 

12.  How  far  are  the  decrees  of  God  efficacious  and  how  far 
permissive  ? 

All  the  decrees  of  God  are  equally  efficacious  in  the  sense  that 
they  all  infallibly  determine  the  certain  futurition  of  the  event 
decreed.  Theologians,  however,  classify  the  decrees  of  God  thus : 
Ist.  As  efficacious  in  as  far  as  they  respect  those  events  which  he 
has  detenuined  to  effect  through  necessary  causes,  or  in  his  own 
immediate  agency.  2d.  As  permissive,  as  far  as  they  respect 
those  events  which  he  has  determined  to  allow  dependent  free 
agents  to  effect. 

13.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  decree  of  God  renders  the 
event  certain  ? 

1st.  From  the  nature  of  the  decree  itself  as  sovereign  and  un- 
changeable, (see  above.) 

2d.  From  the  essential  nature  of  God  in  his  relation  to  his 
^creation,  as  an  infinitely  Avise  and  powerful  sovereign. 


NOT   INCONSISTENT   WITH   MAN's   FREE   AGENCY.  169 

3(1.  The  foreknowledge  of  God  regards  future  events  as  cer- 
tain. The  ground  of  this  certainty  must  be  either  in  Grod,  or  in 
the  events  themselves,  which  last  is  fatalism. 

4th.  The  Scriptures  ascribe  a  certainty  of  futurition  to  the 
events  decreed.  There  is  a  needs  be  that  the  event  should  hap- 
pen "as  it  was  determined." — Luke  xviii.,  31-33;  xxiv.,  46; 
Acts  ii.,  23  ;  xiii.,  29  ;  1  Cor.  xi.,  19  ;  Matt,  xvi.,  21. 

14.  Hoio  does  this  doctrine,  that  God's  universal  decree  ren- 
ders the  occurrence  of  all  future  events  certain^  differ  from  the 
ancient  doctrine  of  fate  ? 

1st.  The  doctrine  of  fate  supposed  the  certainty  of  events  to 
be  determined  by  a  law  of  necessary  causation,  effecting  its  end 
irresistibly  and  irrespectively  of  the  free  choice  of  the  human 
agents  concerned.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  God's  decrees,  on 
the  other  hand,  regards  that  decree  as  determining  the  certainty 
of  the  event  only  in  dependence  upon,  and  in  relation  to  all  the 
causes  and  conditions  which  jirecede  and  attend  it.  It  determines 
the  free  act  through  the  free  will  of  the  free  agent. 

2d.  Fate  was  regarded  as  the  concurrent  action  of  all  material 
causes  operating  blindly  and  necessarily. 

The  decrees  of  Jehovah,  on  the  other  hand,  are  the  infinitely 
wise  and  immutable  purposes  of  a  righteous  and  merciful  Father. 

15.  iVhat  objection  to  this  doctrine  of  unconditional  decrees 
is  derived  from  the  admitted  fact  of  man' s  free  agency  ? 

Objection. — Foreknowledge  implies  the  certainty  of  the  event. 
The  decree  of  God  implies  that  he  has  determined  it  to  be  cer- 
tain. But  that  he  has  determined  it  to  be  certain  imj^lies,  upon 
the  part  of  God,  an  efficient  agency  in  bringing  about  that  event 
wliich  is  inconsistent  with  the  free  agency  of  man. 

We  answer  :  It  is  evidenily  only  the  execution  of  the  decree, 
and  not  the  decree  itselfT  which  can  interfere  with  the  tree  as^enc 


of  man.  Un  the  general  subject  of  the  method  in  Avhich  God 
exe^ntCs  his  decrees,  see  below,  the  chapters  on  Providence, 
Effectual  Calling,  and  Regeneration. 

We  have  here  room  only  for  the  following  general  statement  : 
1st.  The  Scriptures  attribute  all  that  is  good  in  man  to  God  ; 


170  THE   DECREES   OF    GOD   IN   GENERAL. 

these  "  he  works  in  ns  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleas- 
ure." All  the  sins  which  men  commit  the  Scriptm'es  attribute 
wholly  to  the  man  himself.  Yet  God's  permissive  decree  does 
truly  determine  the  certain  futurition  of  the  act  ;  because  God 
knowing  certainly  that  the  man  in  question  would  in  the  given 
circumstances  so  act,  did  place  that  very  man  in  precisely  those 
circumstances  that  he  should  so  act.  But  in  neither  case, 
whether  in  working  the  good  in  us,  or  in  placing  us  where  we  will 
certainly  do  the  wrong,  does  God  in  executing  his  purpose  ever 
violate  or  restrict  the  perfect  freedom  of  the  agent. 

2d.  We  have  the  fact  distinctly  revealed  that  God  has  decreed 
the  free  acts  of  men,  and  yet  that  the  actors  were  none  the  less 
responsible,  and  consequently  none  the  less  free  in  their  acts.  Acts 
ii.,  23  ;  iii„  18  ;  iv.,  27,  28  ;  Gen.  1.,  20,  etc.  We  never  can  un- 
derstand lioiu  the  infinite  God  acts  upon  the  finite  spirit  of  man, 
but  it  is  none  the  less  our  duty  to  believe. 

3d.  According  to  that  theory  of  the  will  which  makes  the  free- 
dom of  man  to  consist  in  the  liberty  of  indifference,  i.  e.,  that  the 
will  acts  in  every  case  of  choice  in  a  state  of  perfect  equilibrium, 
equally  independent  of  all  motives  for  or  against,  and  just  as  free 
to  choose  in  opposition  to  all  desires  as  in  harmony  with  them, 
it  is  evident  that  the  very  essence  of  liberty  consists  in  uncertainty. 
If  this  be  the  true  theory  of  the  will,  God  could  not  execute  his 
decrees  without  violating  the  liberty  of  the  agent,  and  certain 
foreknowledge  would  be  impossible. 

But  as  shown  below,  in  chapter  18,  the  true  theory  of  the  will 
is  that  the  liberty  of  the  agent  consists  in  his  acting  in  each  case 
as,  upon  the  whole,  he  pleases,  i.  e.,  according  to  the  dispositions 
and  desires  of  his  heart,  under  the  immediate  view  which  his  rea- 
son takes  of  the  case.  These  dispositions  and  desires  are  deter- 
mined in  their  turn  by  the  character  of  the  agent  in  relation  to 
his  circumstances,  which  character  and  circumstances  are  surely 
not  beyond  the  control  of  the  infinite  God. 

16.  What  is  meant  by  those  ivho  teach  that  God  is  the  author 
of  sin  ? 

Many  reasoners  of  a  Pantheistic  tendency,  e.  g.,  Dr.  Emmons, 
maintain  that  as  God  is  infinite  in  sovereignty,  and  by  his  decree 
determines  so  by  his  providence,   he  effects  every  thing  which 


GOD    NOT    THE    AUTHOR   OF    SIN.  171 

comes  to  pass,  so  that  he  is  actually  the  only  real  agent  in  the 
universe.  Still  they  religiously  hold  that  God  is  an  infinitely 
holy  agent  in  efiecting  that  which,  produced /rom  God,  is  righte- 
ous, but,  produced  in  us,  is  sin. 

17.  Hoiv  may  it  be  shown  that  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin  ? 

The  admission  of  sin  into  the  creation  of  an  infinitely  Avise, 
powerful  and  holy  God  is  a  great  mystery,  of  which  no  explana- 
tion can  be  given.  But  that  God  can  not  be  the  author  of  sin  is 
proved,  1st,  from  the  nature  of  sin,  which  is,  as  to  its  essence, 
(ivoiiiaj  want  of  conformity  to  law,  and  disobedience  to  the  Law- 
giver. 

2d.  From  the  nature  of  God,  who  is  as  to  essence  holy, 
and  in  the  administration  of  his  kingdom  always  forbids  and 
punishes  sin. 

3d.  From  the  nature  of  man,  who  is  a  responsible  free  agent 
who  originates  his  own  acts.  The  Scriptures  always  attribute  to 
divine  grace  the  good  actions,  and  to  the  evil  heart  the  sinful  ac- 
tions of  men. 

18.  Hoiv  may  it  be  shoion  that  the  doctrine  of  unconditional 
decrees  does  not  represent  God  as  the  author  of  sin  ? 

The  whole  difficulty  lies  in  the  awful  fact  that  sin  exists.  If 
God  foresaw  it  and  yet  created  the  agent,  and  placed  him  in  the 
very  circumstances  imder  which  he  did  foresee  the  sin  would  be 
committed,  then  he  did  predetermine  it.  If  he  did  not  foresee 
it,  or,  foreseeing  it,  could  not  prevent  it,  then  he  is  not  infinite  in 
knowledge  and  in  power,  but  is  surprised  and  prevented  by  his 
creatures.  The  doctrine  of  unconditional  decrees  presents  no 
special  difficulty.  It  represents  God  as  decreeing  that  the  sin 
shall  eventuate  as  the  free  act  of  the  sinner,  and  not  as  by  any 
form  of  coaction  causing,  nor  by  any  form  of  temptation  inducing 
him  to  sin. 

19.   What  is  the  objection  to  this  doctrine  derived  from  the  use 
of  means  ? 

This  is  the  most  common  form  of  objection  in  the  mouths  of 
ignorant  and  irreligious  people.  If  an  immutable  decree  makes 
all  future  events  certain,  "if  lohat  is  to  be,  loill  be,"  then  it  fol- 


172  THE   DECREES   OF   GOD   IN    GENERAL. 

lows  tliat  no  means  upon  our  part  can  avoid  the  result,  nor  can 
any  means  Lc  necessary  to  secure  it. 

Hence  as  the  use  of  means  is  commanded  by  God,  and  instinc- 
tively natural  to  man,  since  many  events  have  been  effected  by 
their  use,  and  many  more  in  the  future  evidently  depend  upon 
them,  it  follows  that  God  has  not  rendered  certain  any  of  those 
events  which  depend  upon  the  use  of  means  on  the  part  of 
men. 

20.  What  is  the  ground  upon  lohich  the  use  of  means  is 
founded  ? 

This  use  is  founded  upon  the  command  of  God,  and  upon  that 
fitness  in  the  means  to  secure  the  end  desired,  which  our  instincts, 
our  intelligence,  and  our  experience  disclose  to  us.  But  neither 
the  fitness  nor  the  efficiency  of  the  means  to  secure  the  end,  reside 
inherently  and  independently  in  the  means  themselves,  but  were 
originally  established  and  are  now  sustained  by  God  himself  ;  and 
in  the  working  of  all  means  God  always  presides  and  directs  pro- 
videntially. This  is  necessarily  involved  in  any  Christian  theory 
of  Providence,  although  we  can  never  explicate  the  relative  action 
{concursus)  of  God  on  man,  the  infinite  u23on  the  finite. 

21.  Hoio  7nay  it  he  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  decrees  does 
not  afford  a  rational  ground  of  discouragement  in  the  use  of 
means  ? 

This  difficulty  (stated  above,  question  19j  rests  entirely  in  a 
habit  of  isolating  one  part  of  God's  eternal  decree  from  the  whole, 
(see  question  7),  and  in  confounding  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
decrees  with  the  heathen  doctrine  of  fate,  (see  question  14.)  But 
when  God  decreed  an  event  he  made  it  certainly  future,  not  as 
insolatcd  from  other  events,  or  as  independent  of  all  means  and 
ao-ents,  but  as  dependent  upon  means  and  upon  agents  freely 
usino-  thos«i  means.  The  same  decree  which  makes  the  event  cer- 
tain, also  determines  the  mode  by  which  it  shall  be  effected,  and 
comprehends  the  means  with  the  ends.  This  eternal,  all  com- 
prehensive act  embraces  all  existence  through  all  duration,  and 
all  space  as  one  system,  and  at  once  provides  for  the  whole 
in  all  its  parts,  and  for  all  the  parts  in  all  their  relations 
to  -one  another  and  to  the  whole.     An  event,    therefore,  may 


PRACTICAL    EFFECTS.  173 

be  certain  in  respect  to  God's  decree  and  foreknowledge,  and  at 
the  same  time  truly  contingent  in  the  apprehension  of  man,  and 
in  its  relation  to  the  means  upon  which  it  depends. 

22.   WTiat  are  the  proper  practical  effects  of  this  doctrine  ? 

Humility  in  view  of  the  infinite  greatness  and  sovereignty  of 
Grodj^amTof  the  dependence  of  man.  Confidence,,  and  implicit 
reliance  upon  the  wisdom,  righteousness,  goodness  and  immuta- 
bility of  God's  purposes,  and  cheerful  obedience  to  his  com- 
mandments ;  always  remembering  that  God's  precepts,  as  dis- 
tinctly revealed,  and  not  his  decrees,  are  the  rule  of  our  duty. 


CHAPTER    X. 

PREDESTINATION. 

1.  W7iat  are  the  different  senses  in  which  the  word  predesti- 
nation is  used  by  theologians  ? 

1st.  As  equivalent  to  the  generic  word  decreee,  as  including 
all  God's  eternal  purposes. 

2d.  As  embracing  only  those  purposes  of  Grod  which  specially 
respect  his  moral  creatures. 

3d,  As  designating  only  the  counsel  of  God  concerning  fallen 
men,  including  the  sovereign  election  of  some  and  the  most  righte- 
ous reprobation  of  the  rest. 

4th.  It  is  sometimes  restricted  in  the  range  of  its  usage  so  far 
as  to  be  applied  only  to  the  eternal  election  of  God's  people  to 
everlasting  life. 

The  sense  marked  as  3d,  above,  is  the  most  proper  usage. — 
See  Acts  iv.,  27,  28. 

2.  In  what  senses  are  the  words  -npoytvcjaKO)  (to  know  before- 
hand), and  7TQ6yvu)OLg  (foreknowledge),  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment? 

UpoyivoJaiio)  is  compounded  of  ngu,  before,  and  yivcjoKO),  of 
which  the  primary  sense  is  to  know,  and  the  secondary  sense  to 
ajyprove,  e.  g.,  2  Tim.  ii.,  19  ;  John  x.,  14,  15  ;  Kom.  vii.,  15. 
This  word  occurs  five  times  in  the  New  Testament.  Twice,  e.  g., 
Acts  xxvi.,  5,  and  2  Pet.  iii.  17,  it  signifies  previous  knowledge, 
apprehension,  simply.  In  the  remaining  three  instances,  Rom. 
viii.,  29  ;  xi.,  2  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  20,  it  is  used  in  the  secondary  sense 
of  approve  beforehand.  This  is  made  evident  from  the  context, 
for  it  is  used  to  designate  the  ground  of  God's  predestination  of 
individuals  to  salvation,  which  elsewhere  is  expressly  said  to  be 
"  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose 


DEFINITIONS.  175 

and  gi'ace,"  and  "to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will/'  2  Tim.  i.,  9  ; 
Rom.  ix.,  11 ;  Eph.  i.,  5. 

Upoyvcooig  occurs  but  twice  in  the  New  Testament,  e.  g.,  Acts 
ii.,  23,  and  1  Pet.  i.  2,  in  both  of  which  instances  it  evidently  sig- 
nifies approbation,  or  choice  from  beforehand.  It  is  explained  by 
tlie  equivalent  phrase  "  determinate  counsel." 

3.  What  is  the  New  Testament  usage  of  the  ivords  t/fAe}  w  {to 
elect)  and  tVAoy^  {election)  ? 

'EftAt'yw  occurs  twenty-one  times  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is 
used  to  signify,  1st,  Christ's  choice  of  men  to  be  apostles,  Luke 
vi.,  13  ;  John  vi.,  70.  2d.  God's  choice  of  the  Jewish  nation  as 
a  peculiar  people.  Acts  xiii.,  17.  3d.  the  choice  of  men  by  God, 
or  by  the  church  for  some  special  service.  Acts  xv.,  7,  22.  4th. 
The  choice  made  by  Maiy  of  the  better  part,  Luke  x.,  42.  5th. 
In  the  great  majority  of  instances  God's  eternal  election  of  indi- 
vidual men  to  everlasting  life,  John  xv.,  16  ;  1  Cor.  i.,  27,  28  ; 
Eph.  i.,  4  ;  James  ii.,  5. 

'Eft-Aoy?/  occurs  seven  times  in  the  New  Testament.  Once  it 
signifies  an  election  to  the  apostolic  office. — Acts  ix.,  15.  Once 
it  signifies  those  chosen  to  eternal  life. — Rom.  xi.,  7.  In  every 
other  case  it  signifies  the  purpose  or  the  act  of  God  in  choosing 
his  own  people  to  salvation. — Rom.  ix.,  11;  xi.,  5,  28  ;  1  Thes. 
i.,  4 ;  2  Pet.  i.,  10. 

4.  To  lohom  is  election  referred  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

The  eternal  decree,  as  a  whole,  and  in  all  its  parts,  is  doubt- 
less the  concurrent  act  of  all  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity,  in 
their  perfect  oneness  of  counsel  and  will. 

But  in  the  economy  of  salvation,  as  revealed  to  us,  the  act  of 
sovereign  election  is  specially  attributed  to  the  Father,  as  his 
personal  part,  even  as  redemption  is  attributed  to  the  Son,  and 
sanctification  to  the  Spirit. — John  xvii.,  6,  9  ;  vi.,  64,  65  ;  1 
Thes.  V.  9. 

5.  Arc  individuals,  classes,  or  communities,  the  object  of 
election  ? 

The  word  "  election"  (as  shown  above,  question  3)  is  applied  to 
the  designation  by  God  of  certain  nations  and  classes  of  men  to 
privileges  and  ofBices  in  the  visible  church.     But  that  it  is  also 


176  PREDESTINATION. 

applied  to  the  eternal  election  of  individuals  to  salvation  is 
evident. 

1st.  The  subjects  of  this  election  are  everywhere  spoken  of 
as  individuals. — Acts  xiii.,  48  ;  Eph.  i.,  4  ;  2  Thes.  ii.,  13. 

2d.  The  elect  are  distinguished  from  the  general  community 
of  the  visible  church.  All  Israel,  as  a  body,  did  not  obtain  that 
which  they  sought  for,  the  election  obtained  it,  and  the  rest  were 
bhnded. — Rom.  xi.,  7. 

3d.  The  names  of  these  are  said  "  to  be  vnritten  in  heaven," 
and  to  be  "  in  the  book  of  life."— Heb.  xii.,  23  ;  Phil,  iv.,  3. 

4th.  The  blessings  which  this  election  secures  are  such  as  per- 
tains to  individuals  alone,  and  not  to  classes  or  communities  as 
such,  e.  g.,  "  salvation,"  "  adoption  of  sons,"  "  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  God's  Son." — 2  Thes.  ii.,  13  ;  Eph.  i.,  5  ;  Rom. 
viii.,  29. 

6.  What  is  the  Supra-lapsq/rian  theory  of  predestination  ? 

The  term  supra-lap^-Tan  (supra  lapsum)  designates  that  view 
of  the  various  provisions  of  the  divine  decree  in  their  logical  rela- 
tions which  supposes  that  theul^jgag^ti^^d.  which  God  proposed 
to  himself,  was  his  own  glory  m  the  salvation  of  some  men  and  in 
the  damnation  orothers,  and  that,  as  a  means  to  that  end,  he  de- 
creed to  create  man,  and  to  permit  him  to  fall.  According  to 
this  view,  man  simply  as  creatible,  and  fallible,  and  not  as  actu- 
ally created  or  fallen,  is  the  object  of  election  and  reprobation. 
The  order  of  the  decrees  would  then  be,  1st.  Of  all  possible  men, 
God  first  decreed  the  salvation  of  some  and  the  damnation  of 
others,  for  the  end  of  his  own  glory.  2d.  He  decreed,  as  a  means 
to  that  end,  to  create  those  already  elected  or  reprobated.  3d. 
He  decreed  to  permit  them  to  fall.  4th.  He  decreed  to  provide  a 
salvation  for  the  elect. 

7.  What  are  the  objections  to  this  theorij  ? 

1st.  It  involves  logical  confusion.  Man  creatible  is  a  nonen- 
tity. He  could  not  have  been  loved  or  chosen  unless  considered 
as  created. 

2d.  The  whole  language  of  Scripture  upon  this  subject  im- 
plies that  the  "  elect"  are  chosen  as  the  objects  of  eternal  love,  not 


SUPRA-LAPSARIAN   THEORY.  177 

from  the  number" of  creatible,  but  from  the  mass  of  actually  sin- 
ful men. — John  xv.,  19;  Kom.  xi.,  5,  7. 

3d,  The  Scriptures  declare  that  the  elect  are  chosen  to  sancti- 
fication,  and  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  They  must 
therefore  have  been  regarded  when  chosen  as  guilty  and  defiled 
by  sin.— 1  Pet.  i.,  2  ;  Eph,  i.,  4-6. 

4th.  Predestination  includes  reprobation.  This  view  repre- 
sents God  as  reprobating  the  non-elect  by  a  sovereign  act,  without 
any  respect  to  their  sins,  simply  for  his  own  glory.  This  appears 
to  be  inconsistent  with  the  divine  righteousness,  as  well  as  with 
the  teaching  of  Scripture.  The  non-elect  are  "  ordained  to  dis- 
honor and  wrath  for  their  sms,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  Jus- 
tice.—Conl  Faith,  ch.  3,  Sec.  3-7,  L.  Cat.,  question  13  ;  S.  Cat., 
question  20. 

8.  What  is  the  true  interpretation  of  Eph.  iii.,  9,  10. 

This  passage  is  claimed  as  a  direct  affirmation  of  the  supra- 
lapsarian  theory.  If  the  tVa,  introducing  the  tenth  verse,  refers  to 
the  immediately  preceding  clause,  which  closes  the  ninth  verse, 
then  the  passage  teaches  that  God  created  all  things,  in  order  that 
his  manifold  wisdom  might  be  displayed  by  the  church  to  the 
angels.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  Iva  refers  to  the  preceding 
phrase,  in  which  Paul  declares  he  w\as  ordained  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  to  enlighten  all  men  as  to  the  mys- 
tery of  redemption.  All  this  he  was  commissioned  to  do,  in 
order  that  God's  glory  might  be  displayed,  etc. — See  Hodge 
on  Ephesians.  •• 

9.  What  is  the  suh-lapsarian  view  of  predestination  ? 

The  sub-lapsarian  (sub  lapsum)  theory  of  predestination,  oi 
the  decree  of  predestination,  viewed  as  subsequent  in  purpose  to 
the  decree  permitting  man  to  fall,  represents  man  as  created  and 
fallen  as  the  object  of  election.  The  order  of  the  decrees  then 
stand  thus  :  1st.  The  decree  to  create  man.  2d.  To  permit  man 
to  flill.  3d.  The  decree  to  elect  certain  men,  out  of  the  mass  of 
the  fallen  and  justly  condemned  race,  to  eternal  life,  and  to  pass 
others  by,  leaving  them  to  the  just  consequences  of  their  sins.. 
4th.  The  decree  to  jirovide  salvation  for  the  elect. 

12 


178  PREDESTINATION. 

10.  What  is  the  Arminian  theory  as  to  the  order  of  the  de- 
crees relating  to  the  human  race  ? 

1st.  The  decree  to  create  man.  2d.  Man,  as  a  moral  agent, 
being  fallible,  and  his  will  being  essentially  contingent,  and  bis 
sin  therefore  being  imjjreventible,  God,  foreseeing  that  man  would 
certainly  fall  into  the  condemnation  and  pollution  of  sin,  decreed 
to  provide  a  free  salvation  through  Chiist  for  all  men,  and  to 
provide  sufficient  means  for  the  effectual  application  of  that  salva- 
tion to  the  case  of  all.  3d.  He  decreed  absolutely  that  all  be- 
lievers in  Christ  should  be  saved,  and  all  unbelievers  reprobated 
for  their  sins.  4th.  Forseeing  that  certain  individuals  would  re- 
pent and  believe,  and  that  certain  other  individuals  would  con- 
tinue impenitent  to  the  last,  God  from  eternity  elected  to  eternal 
life  those  whose  faith  he  foresaw,  on  the  condition  of  their  faith, 
and  reprobated  those  whom  he  foresaw  would  continue  impeni- 
tent on  the  condition  of  that  impenitence. 

With  the  Arminian  the  decree  of  redemption  precedes  the 
decree  of  election,  which  is  conditioned  upon  the  foreseen  faith 
of  the  individual. 

With  the  Calvinist,  on  the  other  hand,  the  decree  of  election 
precedes  the  decree  of  redemption,  and  the  decree  of  election  is 
conditioned  upon  the  simple  good  pleasure  of  God  alone. — See 
Appendix  B. 

11.  IVhat  is  the  view  of  this  subject  entertained  by  the  French 
Protestant  theologians,  Gamer o,  Amyraut,  and  others  ? 

These  theological  professors  at  Saumur,  during  the  second 
quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century,  taught  that  God,  1st.  Decreed 
to  create  man.  2d.  To  pennit  man  to  fall.  3d.  To  provide,  in 
the  mediation  of  Christ,  salvation  for  all  men.  4th.  But,  fore- 
seeing that  if  men  were  left  to  themselves  none  would  repent  and 
believe,  therefore  he  sovereignly  elected  some  to  Avhom  he  de- 
creed to  give  the  necessary  graces  of  repentance  and  faith. 

The  new  school  tlieology  of  America,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  the 
(Jecrees  of  God,  is  only  a  revival  of  this  system. 

It  differs  from  the  Calviuistic  view  in  making  the  decree  of 
redemption  precede  the  decree  of  election. 

It  differs  fi'om   the   Arminian  view  in    regarding  the  sov- 


LUTHEREAN   VIEW.  179 

ereign  good  pleasure  of  God,  and  not  foreseen  faith,  the  gi-ound  of 
election.  The  objection  to  this  view  is,  that  it  is  an  essential  ele- 
ment in  that  radically  false  view  of  the  atonement  called  the 
governmental  theory. — See  Chapter  XXII.,  questions  6,  7. 

12.  In  what  sense  do  the  Lutherans  teach  that  Christ  is  the 
ground  of  election  ? 

They  held  that  God  elected  his  own  people  to  eternal  life /or 
Christ's  sake.  They  appeal  to  Eph.  i.,  4,  "According  as  ho  hath 
chosen  us  in  him  (Christ)  before  the  foundation  of  the  world." 
This  view  may  evidently  be  construed  either  with  the  Arminian 
or  the  French  theory  of  the  decrees  above  stated,  i.  e.,  we  were 
chosen  in  Christ  for  his  sake,  either  as  we  were  foreseen  to  be  in 
him  through  faith,  or  because  God,  having  provided  through 
Christ  salvation  for  all  men,  would,  by  the  election  of  certain 
individuals,  secure  at  least  in  their  case  the  successful  effect  of 
Christ's  death. 

This  view,  of  course,  is  rebutted  by  the  same  arguments  which 
we  urge  against  the  theories  above  mentioned.  We  are  said  to 
be  chosen  "  in  him,"  not  for  Christ's  saJce,  but  because  the  eter- 
nal covenant  of  grace  includes  all  the  elect  under  the  headship  of 
Christ.  The  love  of  God  is  everywhere  represented  as  the  ground 
of  the  gift  of  Christ,  not  the  work  of  Christ  the  ground  of  the 
love  of  God. — John  iii.,  16  ;  1  John  iv,,  10. 

13.  What  is  the  Arminian  doctrine  as  to  the  ground  of  elec- 
tion ? 

The  faith  and  repentance  of  the  elect  themselves,  as  foreseen 
by  God. 

14.  What,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  vieiv,  is  the  ground 
of  predestination  ? 

The  eternal,  sovereign,  and  infinitely  wise,  righteous,  and  lov- 
ing will  of  God. 

15.  Wliat  arguments  overthroio  the  Arminian  and  establish 
the  Calvinistic  vieio  ? 

1st.  It  is  derogatory  to  the  sovereignty  and  infinite  perfections 
of  God  to  regard  any  decree  of  his  as  conditional  upon  any  thing 
without  himself. — See  above,  Chap.  IX.,  question  11. 


180  PKEDESTINATION. 

2d.  On  the  contrary,  the  Scriptures  always  assign  the  good 
pleasure  of  God  as  the  ground  of  election. — Eph.  i.,  5,  11  ;  2 
Tim.  i.,  9  ;  Kom.  viii.,  28.  Its  gi-ound  is  declared  to  be  in  God 
and  not  in  us,  John  xv.,  16-19  ;  Matt,  xi.,  26  ;  James  ii.,  5  ;  and 
to  be  of  grace  and  not  of  works,  Kom.  xi.,  4-7.  This  is  affinned, 
argued  and  illustrated,  Rom.  ix.,  10-13. 

3d.  Faith  and  repentence  are  themselves  declared  to  be  "  the 
gift  of  God,"  Eph.  ii.,  8  ;  Acts  v.,  31,  and  therefore  were  included 
in  the  decree,  and  could  not  have  been  the  indeterminate  condition 
of  it. — See  Chapter  IX.,  question  7. 

4th.  It  is  expressly  affirmed  that  the  elect  were  chosen  "  to  be 
holy,"  and  "  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,"  and  not  be- 
cause these  were  foreseen  ;  faith  and  repentance,  therefore,  are  the 
consequents,  not  the  gi'ounds  of  election,  Rom.  viii.,  29  ;  Eph.  i., 
4  ;  ii.,  10  ;  2  Thess.  ii.,  13  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  2. 

5th.  Man,  antecedently  to  election,  could  not  have  been  fore- 
seen as  repentant  and  believing,  because  human  nature  can  bring 
forth  no  such  fruits.  But  God  elects  his  people  to  grace,  and 
through  grace  to  faith  and  to  all  the  fruits  thereof  Therefore, 
"  whom  he  did  predestinate  them  he  also  called." — Rom.  viii.,  30  ; 
2  Thess.  ii.,  13,  14 

6th.  The  elect  and  the  effectually  called  are  the  same,  and  the 
calling  is  based  upon  the  election,  2  Tim.  i.,  9,  10  ;  Rev.  xvii., 
14— See  Chapter  XXV. 

7th.  All  the  elect  shall  believe,  John  x.,  16  and  27-29  ;  vi., 
37-39  ;  xvii.,  2,  9,  24,  and  only  the  elect  believe,  and  because 
they  are  stick,  John  x.,  26  ;  Acts  xiii.,  48  ;  ii.,  47. 

16.  JFhat  argument  may  he  drawn  from  the  nature  of  the  ob- 
jections to  Paul's  doctrine,  ivifh  tvhich  the  Apostle  deals  in  the 
[)th  chapter  of  Romans  ? 

Paul's  doctrine  is  indentical  with  the  Calvinistic  view.  1st. 
Because  he  ex])ressly  teaches  it.  2d.  Because  the  objections  he 
notices  as  brought  against  his  doctrine  are  the  same  as  those 
brought  against  ours.  The  design  of  the  whole  passage  is  to 
prove  God's  sovereign  right  to  cast  off  the  Jews  as  a  peculiar 
people,  and  to  call  all  men  indiscriminately  by  the  gospel. 

This,  he  argues,  1st,  that  God's  ancient  2)romises  embraced  not 
the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  as  such,  but  the  spiritual 


CONSISTENT   WITH   JUSTICE.  181 

seed.  2d.  That  "  God  is  perfectly  sovereign  in  the  distribution 
of  his  favors." 

But  against  this  doctrine  of  divine  sovereignty  two  objections 
are  introduced  and  answered  by  Paul. 

"^  1st.  It  is  unjust  for  God  thus  of  his  mere  good  pleasure  to 
show  mercy  to  one  and  to  reject  another,  v.  14.  This  precise  ob- 
jection is  made  against  our  doctrine  at  the  present  time  also. 
"It  represents  the  most  holy  God  as  worse  than  the  devil,  as 
more  false,  more  cruel,  and  more  unjust." — Methodist  Doctrinal 
Tracts,  pp.  170,  171.  This  Paul  answers  by  two  arguments. 
(1.)  God  claims  the  right  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will 
have  mercy,"  vs.  15,  16.  (2.)  God  in  his  providence  exercises  the 
right,  as  in  the  case  of  Pharoah,  vs.  17,  18. 

'^  2d.  The  second  objection  is  that  this  doctrine  is  inconsistent 
with  the  liberty  and  accountability  of  men.  The  same  objection 
is  made  against  our  doctrine  now  also. 

Paul  answers  this  objection  by  condescending  to  no  appeal  to 
human  reason,  but  simj^ly  (1.)  by  asserting  God's  sovereignty  as 
creator,  and  man's  dependence  as  creature,  and  (2.)  by  asserting 
the  just  exposure  of  all  men  alike  to  wrath  as  sinners. — See  Ana- 
lysis of  chap,  ix.,  6-24,  in  Hodge's  Com.  on  Romans. 

17.  Hoiu  can  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  election  he  reconciled 
tvith  the  justice  of  God  ? 

Gratuitous  election  as  the  ultimate  ground  of  salvation  is  not 
only  clearly  consistent  w^ith  justice,  but  it  is  the  only  conceivable 
princii)le  which  is  so.  Justice  necessarily  holds  all  sinners  alike 
as  destitute  of  all  claims  upon  God's  favor,  and  will  admit  of  sal- 
vation being  offered  at  all  only  on  the  ground  of  sovereign  favor. 
The  essence  of  salvation  by  the  gospel  is  that  it  is  of  grace,  not 
of  debt. — Lam.  iii.,  22  ;  Rom.  iv.,  4,  5  ;  xi.,  6  ;  Eph.  i.,  6,  7  ; 
ii.,  8-10.  If  this  be  so  it  is  evident  that  while  no  one  can  be 
saved  upon  any  other  ground  than  that  of  a  gratuitous  election, 
it  rests  only  with  God  himself  to  save  all,  many,  few,  or  none. 
Justice  can  not  demand  that  because  some  are  saved  all  must  be. 
Those  not  elected  are  simply  left  to  be  dealt  with  according  to 
justice  for  their  own  sins.  There  is  a  lurking  feeling  among 
many  that  somehow^  God  owes  to  all  men  at  least  a  full  ojiportu- 
nity  of  being  saved  through  Christ.     If  so  there  was  no  grace  in 


182  PREDESTINATION. 

Chi-ist's  dying.  "  I  reject/'  says  Wesley,  Meth.  Doc.  Tracts,  pp. 
25,  26,  "  the  assertion  that  God  might  justly  have  passed  by  me 
and  all  men,  as  a  bold,  precarious  assertion,  utterly  unsupported 
by  holy  Scripture."  Then,  we  say,  of  course  the  gospel  was  of 
debt,  not  of  grace. 

18.  How  does  this  doctrine  consist  with  the  general  benevo- 
lence of  God? 

The  only  difficulty  at  this  point  is  to  reconcile  the  general  be- 
nevolence of  God  with  the  fact  that  he,  being  infinitely  wise  and 
powerful,  should  have  admitted  a  system  involving  the  sin,  final 
impenitence,  and  consequent  damnation  of  any.  But  this  diffi- 
culty presses  equally  upon  both  systems. 

The  facts  prove  that  God's  general  benevolence  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  his  allowing  some  to  be  damned  for  their  sins.  This 
is  all  that  reprobation  means.  Gratuitous  election,  or  the  posi- 
tive choice  of  some  does  not  rest  upon  God's  general  benevolence, 
but  upon  his  special  love  to  his  own,  John  xvii.,  6,  23  ;  Kom.  is., 
11-13  ;  1  Thess.  v.,  9. 

19.  How  docs  this  doctrine  consist  with  the  genercd  gospel 
offer  ? 

In  the  general  offers  of  the  gospel  God  exhibits  a  salvation 
sufficient  for  and  exactly  adapted  to  all,  and  sincerely  offered  to 
every  one  without  exception,  and  he  unfolds  all  the  motives  of 
duty,  hope,  fear,  etc.,  which  ought  to  induce  every  one  to  accept 
it,  solemnly  promising  that  whosoever  comes  in  no  wise  shall  be 
cast  out.  Nothing  but  a  sinful  unwillingness  can  prevent  any 
one  who  hears  the  gospel  from  receiving  and  enjoying  it. 

The  gospel  is  for  all,  election  is  a  special  grace  in  addition  to 
that  offer.     The  non-elect  may  come  if  they  will.     The  elect  will 

come.  ,^ 

'HM'e  is  just  as  great  an  apparent  difficulty  in  reconciling 
God's  certain  foreknowledge  of  the  final  impenitence  of  the  great 
majority  of  those  to  whom  he  offers  and  upon  whom  he  presses, 
by  every  argument,  his  love  with  the  fact  of  that  offer  ;  especially 
when  we  reflect  that  he  foresees  that  his  offers  will  certainly  in- 
crease their  guilt  and  misery. 


ASSURANCE   POSSIBLE.  183 

20.  Holu  far  is  assurance  of  our  election  possible,  and  on 
what  grounds  does  such  assurance  rest  ? 

An  unwavering  and  certain  assurance  of  the  fact  of  our  elec- 
tion is  possible  in  this  life,  for  whom  God  predestinates  them  he 
also  calls,  and  whom  he  calls  he  justifies,  and  we  know  that  whom 
he  justifies,  he  also  sanctifies.  Thus  the  fruits  of  the  Sj)irit  prove 
sanctification,  and  sanctification  proves  effectual  calling,  and 
effectual  calling  election.— See  2  Pet.  i.,  5-10  ;  1  John  ii.,  3. 

Besides  this  evidence  of  our  own  gracious  states  and  acts,  we 
have  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  who  witnesseth  with  our  sjjirits  and 
seals  us. — Rom.  viii.,  16,  17  ;  Eph.  iv.,  30. 

In  confirmation  of  this  we  have  the  example  of  the  apostles 
(2  Tim.  i.,  12)  and  of  many  Chi-istians. 

21.  What  is  reprobation  ? 

Reprobation  is  the  aspect  which  God's  eternal  decree  presents 
in  its  relation  to  that  portion  of  the  human  race  which  shall  be 
finally  condemned  for  their  sins. 

It  is,  1st,  negative,  in  as  much  as  it  consists  in  passing  over 
these,  and  refusing  to  elect  them  to  life  ;  and,  2d,  positive,  in  as 
much  as  they  are  condemned  to  eternal  misery. 

In  respect  to  its  negative  element,  reprobation  is  simply  sov- 
ereign, since  those  passed  over  were  no  worse  than  those  elected, 
and  the  simple  reason  both  for  the  choosing  and  for  the  passing- 
over  was  the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of  God. 

In  respect  to  its  positive  element,  reprobation  is  not  sovereign, 
but  simply  judicial,  because  God  inflicts  misery  in  any  case  only 
as  the  righteous  punishment  of  sin.  "The  rest  of  mankind  God 
was  pleased,  according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own 
will,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for 
their  sins." — Con.  Faith,  Chap.  III.,  Sec.  7. 

22.  How  may  this  doctrine  of  7'eprobation  be  proved  to  be 
true  ? 

1st.  It  is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  unconditional  election, 
and  is  therefore  established  by  all  the  evidence  upon  which  that 
doctrine  rests,  (sec  above,  question  15.) 

2d.  It  is  directly  taught  in  such  passages  as  the  following : 


184  PKEDESTINATION. 

Kom.  ix.,  10-24 ;    1  Pet.  ii.,  8  ;   2d  Pet.  ii.,  12  ;    Jude  4;  Kev. 
xiii.,  8. 

23.  What  is  the  objection  to  this  doctrine  stated,  (Kom.  ix., 
19,)  and  hoiv  does  Paul  answer  it  ? 

"  Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault  ?"  If  he  has  not  given  gracious 
ability  to  obey,  how  can  he  command. — See  also  Methodist  Doc- 
trinal Tracts,  p.  171. 

The  apostle  answers  by  showing,  1st,  (verses  20,  21,)  that  Grod 
is  under  no  obligation  to  extend  his  grace  to  all  or  to  any  ; 
and,  2d,  that  the  "  vessels  of  wrath"  were  condemned  for  their 
own  sins,  to  manifest  God's  just  wrath,  while  the  "  vessels  of 
mercy"  were  chosen  not  for  any  good  in  them,  but  to  manifest  his 
glorious  grace  (verses  22,  23). 

24.  In  ivhat  sense  is  God  said  to  harden  men  (see  Kom.  i., 
24-28,  and  ix.,  18)  .? 

This  is  doubtless  a  judicial  act  wherein  God  withdraws  from 
sinful  men,  whom  he  has  not  elected  to  life,  for  the  just  punish- 
ment of  their  sins,  all  gracious  influences,  and  leaves  them  to  the 
unrestrained  tendencies  of  their  own  hearts,  and  to  the  uncoun- 
teracted  influences  of  the  world  and  the  devil. 

25.  Hoiu  can  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  he  reconciled  with 
the  holiness  of  God  ? 

Keprobation  leaves  men  in  sin,  and  thus  leads  to  the  increase 
of  sin  throughout  eternity.  How  then  can  God,  in  consistency 
with  his  holiness,  form  a  purpose  the  designed  effect  of  which 
is  to  leave  men  in  sin,  and  thus  lead  inevitably  to  the  increase 
of  sin. 

But  it  is  acknowledged  by  Arminians  as  well  as  Calvinists, 
that  God  did  create  the  human  race  in  spite  of  his  certain  fore- 
knowledge that  sin  would  be  largely  occasioned  thereby,  and  he 
did  create  individual  men  in  spite  of  his  certain  foreknowledge 
that  these  very  men  would  continue  eternally  to  sin.  The  sim- 
ple difficulty  is,  the  fact  that  Gud  does  not  convert  all  men. 

26.  What  is  the  practical  bearing  of  this  doctrine  on  Chris- 
tian experience  and  conduct  ? 


PRACTICAL  EFFECT  OF  THIS  DOCTRINE.         185 

It  must  be  remembered,  1st.  That  this  truth  is  not  inconsis- 
tent with,  but  is  part  of  the  same  gracious  system  with  the 
equally  certain  principles  of  the  moral  liberty  and  responsibility 
of  man,  and  the  free  offers  of  the  gospel  to  all.  2d.  That  the 
sole  rule  of  om-  duty  is  the  commands,  threatcnings,  and  prom- 
ises of  God  clearly  expressed  in  the  gospel,  and  not  this  decree  of 
election,  which  he  never  reveals  except  in  its  consequents  of  effec- 
tual calling,  faith,  and  holy  living. 

When  thus  held  the  doctrine  of  predestination — 

1st.  Exalts  the  majesty  and  absolute  sovereignty  of  Grod, 
while  it  illustrates  the  riches  of  his  free  grace  and  his  just  dis- 
pleasure with  sin. 

2d.  It  enforces  upon  us  the  essential  truth  that  salvation  is 
entirely  of  grace.  That  no  one  can  either  comjjlain,  if  passed 
over,  or  boasts  himself,  if  saved. 

3d.  It  brings  the  inquirer  to  absolute  self-despair,  and  the 
cordial  embrace  of  the  free  offer  of  Christ. 

4th.  In  the  case  of  the  believer,  who  has  the  witness  in  him- 
self, this  doctrine  at  once  deepens  his  humility,  and  elevates  his 
confidence  to  the  full  assurance  of  hope. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 


1.  What  is  the  primary  signification,  and  what  the  biblical 
usage  of  the  tvord  i<';s  ? 

"1st.  Strictly,  To  hew,  cut  out.  2d.  To  form,  viaJce,  produce, 
(whether  out  of  nothing  or  not)  Gren.  i.,  1,  21,  27  ;  ii.,  3,  4  ;  Isa. 
xliii.,  1,  7  ;  xlv.,  V  ;  Ixv.,  18  ;  Ps.  li.,  12  ;  Jer.  xxxi,,  22;  Amos 
iv.,  13.  Niphal,  1st.  To  be  created.  Gen.  ii.,  4;  v.,  2.  2d.  To  be 
born,  Ps.  cii.,  19  ;  Ezek.  xxi.,  35.  Piel.  1st.  To  hew,  cut  doion, 
e.  g.,  a  wood,  Josh,  xvii.,  15,  18.  2d.  To  cut  doion  (with  the 
sword,)  to  kill,  Ezek.  xxiii.,  47.  3d.  To  form,  engrave,  mark  out, 
Ezek.  xxi.,  24." — Gesenius'  Lex. 

2.  What  different  theories  have  been  advocated  in  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  of  creation  ? 

Among  tlie  ancient  philosophers  of  every  school  it  was  uni- 
versally accepted  as  an  indubitable  axiom  that  the  origination  of 
any  new  existence  out  of  nothing  is  impossible,  i.  e.,  ex  nihilo  nihil 
fit.  All,  therefore,  theists  and  atheists  alike,  repudiated  the  idea  of 
creation.  Plato  held  that  there  are  two  eternal,  self-existent  prin- 
ciples, God  and  matter,  which  exist  coordinately  in  an  indivisible 
unsuccessive  eternity  ;  that  time  and  the  actual  phenomenal  world 
which  exists  in  time,  are  the  work  of  God,  who  freely  molds 
matter  into  forms  which  image  his  own  infinitely  j^erfect  and 
eternal  ideas.  Aristotle  also  held  that  God  and  matter  are  co- 
ordinately  self-existent  and  eternal ;  but  he  difiered  from  Plato 
in  regarding  God  as  eternally  self-active  in  organizing  the  world 
out  of  matter,  and  consequently  in  regarding  the  universe  thus 
oro-anized  as  eternal  as  well  as  the  mere  matter  of  which  it  is 
formed. — Ancient  Phil.,  W.  Archer  Butler,  Series  3,  Lectures 


OPPOSING   THEORIES.  187 

1  and  2.  These,  however,  recognized  God  as  the  real  author  of 
the  universe  as  a  harmonious  system.  The  Atomists,  of  whom 
Leucippus  and  Democritus  were  the  first  teachers,  were,  on  the 
other  hand.  Atheists  and  Materialists.  They  held  that  the  only 
self-existent  princij)le  of  all  things  was  an  infinite  number  of 
atoms  which  from  eternity  move  together  in  obedience  to  certain 
necessary  forces,  and  in  their  fortuitous  concourse  combined  and 
constituted  the  various  forms  and  systems  of  bodies  which  com- 
pose the  universe,  as  well  as  the  intelligent  and  sensitive  souls  of 
men,  which  are  as  really  material  as  their  bodies,  or  any  of  the 
grosser  forms  of  matter.  This  system  was  adopted  in  its  essential 
features  by  the  Epicureans. — Ritters'  Hist,  of  Ancient  Phil., 
Book  VI.,  chap.  ii. 

Since  the  Christian  era,  all -who  have  acknowledged  the  Holy 
ScriiDtures  to  be  the  word  of  God  have  agreed  in  maintaining  the 
doctrine  of  God's  absolute  creation  of  the  universe,  alike  matter 
and  form,  out  of  nothing  by  his  mere  230wer  ;  although  some  of 
the  schoolmen,  following  Aristotle,  have  held  that  God  created 
the  world  from  eternity.  The  Manich^ans  of  the  third  and  fourth  j 
centuries,  an  entirely  antichristian  sect,  rejecting  the  Old  Testa-  \ 
ment  and  corrupting  the  New,  maintained  the  coordinate,  eter- 
nal self-existence  of  two  worlds,  of  spirit  and  light  and  of  matter 
and  darkness,  presided  over  by  two  great  antagonistic  beings. 
Our  present  system  is  the  result  of  the  invasion  of  the  world  of 
light  by  the  prince  of  darkness,  and  the  consequent  entanglement 
of  a  portion  of  that  spiritual  world  with  gross  matter.  The 
spirits  of  men  belong  naturally  to  the  one  world,  their  bodies  and 
material  nature  generally  to  the  other.  All  sin  and  suffering  re- 
sult from  the  evil  inherent  in  matter.  The  object  of  Christ's 
mission  was  to  deliver  our  spirits  from  our  bodies,  which  it  is  the 
great  end  of  all  practical  religion  to  mortify  and  subdue.  In 
modern  times  the  deuiers  of  the  doctrine  of  absolute  creation  ex 
nihilo,  have  been  either  Pantheists  or  Atheists.  For  a  statement 
of  the  essential  elements  of  Pantheism,  see  below.  Chapter  I., 
question  35.  The  Atheists  have  differed  among  themselves  ; 
some  maintaining  that  the  present  system  of  the  universe  has 
continued  just  as  it  now  is  in  unbroken  succession  from  eternity  ; 
some  resorting  to  the  atomic  theory  of  the  ancients,  and  others 
holding  to  an  endless  development  of  all  things  from  their  pri- 


188  THE   CREATION    OF   THE   WORLD. 

mordial  elementary  principles.  This  doctrine  of  development  has 
received  its  most  perfect  scientific  exposition  in  La  Place's 
^  Nebular  Hypothesis,  wherein  he  traces  the  evolution  of  the  whole 
solar  system  by  the  rigid  application  of  known  mechanical  prin- 
ciples, from  a  condition  of  intensely  heated  vapor,  rotating  on  its 
axis  from  west  to  east,  precisely  similar  to  that  of  man}^  nebulous 
bodies  now  existing  in  tlie  universe.  As  an  account  of  the  suc- 
cessive stages  through  which  Grod  has  carried  his  work  of  creating 
the  world,  in  which  sease  this  theory  is  very  generally  accepted 
by  Christian  philosophers,  the  nebular  hypothesis  is  a  peerless 
monument  of  its  author's  philosophical  genius.  But  as  an  ac- 
count of  the  manner  in  which  the  world  might  have  come  into 
existence  without  the  intervention  of  either  a  divine  wisdom  or 
power,  in  which  sense  the  author  intended  it,  it  is  an  equally 
eminent  monument  of  his  wickedness  and  folly. 

3.  Hoiv  may  creation  ex  nihilo  he  proved  from  Scripture  ? 

1st.  The  Hebrew  word  translated  create  in  Gen.  i.,  1,  has  a 
sense  precisely  equivalent  to  our  word  make,  and  it  is  the  least 
indefinite  term  in  the  whole  language  that  Moses  could  have 
selected  if  his  purpose  was  to  aflirni  the  absolute  creation  of  the 
world  by  God  out  of  nothing.  And  a  more  limited  sense  can  not 
rationally,  and  has  never,  by  competent  interpreters,  been  put 
upon  these  words,  occurring  as  they  do  at  the  very  opening  of 
the  inspired  account  of  the  "  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of 
the  earth,"  without  connection  with  any  other  proposition,  and 
absolutely  without  limitations  of  any  kind. 

2d.  This  doctrine  is  implied  in  several  other  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, Rom.  iv.,  17  ;  2  Cor.  iv.,  6  ;  Heb.  xi.,  3. 

2d.  This  doctrine  is  also  implied  in  all  those  innumerable 
passages  of  Scripture  which  declare  that  God's  power  and  sover- 
eignty are  both  infinite. 

4.  What  other  arguments  may  be  adduced  in  proof  of  crea- 
tion, 'properly  so  called  ? 

1st.  The  doctrine  that  matter  is  self-existent  and  eternal,  and 
that  God  has  simply  formed  the  W':^ld  out  of  preexisting  material 
is  plainly  inconsistent  with  his  absolute  independence  and  all- 


ABSOLUTE  CREATION  PROVED.  189 

sufficiency.  It  evidently  limits  the  Creator,  and  makes  him  in 
working  dependent  upon  the  nature  of  the  material  with  which 
he  works. 

2d.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  feeling  of  absolute  dependence 
of  the  creature  upon  the  Creator,  which  is  inherent  in  every  heart, 
and  which  is  inculcated  in  all  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures.  It 
could  not  be  said  that  "  he  upholds  all  things  by  the  word  of  his 
power,"  nor  that  "  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being  in 
him,"  unless  he  be  absolutely  the  Creator  as  well  as  the  Former 
of  all  things. 

3d.  It  is  manifest  from  the  testimony  of  consciousness.  (1.) 
That  our  souls  are  distinct  individual  entities,  and  not  parts  or 
particles  of  God  ;  (2.)  that  they  are  not  eternal.  It  follows  con- 
sequently that  they  were  created.  And  if  the  creation  of  the 
spirits  of  men  ex  nihilo  be  once  admitted,  there  remains  no  special 
difficulty  with  respect  to  the  absolute  creation  of  matter. 

4th.  Although  the  absolute  origination  of  any  new  existence 
out  of  nothing  is  to  us  confessedly  inconceivable,  it  is  not  one 
whit  more  so  than  the  relation  of  the  infinite  foreknowledge,  or 
foreordiuation,  or  providential  control  of  God  to  the  free  agency 
of  men,  nor  than  many  other  truths  which  we  are  all  forced  to 
believe. 

5th.  After  having  admitted  the  necessary  self-existence  of  an 
infinitely  wise  and  powerful  personal  Spirit,  whose  existence, 
upon  the  hypothesis  of  his  possessing  the  power  of  absolute  crea- 
tion, is  sufficient  to  account  f  )r  all  the  phenomena  of  the  universe, 
it  is  unphilosophical  gi-atuitously  to  multiply  causes  by  suppos- 
ing the  independent,  eternal  self-existence  of  matter  also. 

6th.  When  the  physical  philosopher  has  analyzed  matter  to 
its  ultimate  atoms,  and  determined  their  essential  primary  prop- 
erties, he  finds  in  them  as  strong  evidence  of  a  powerful  antece- 
dent cause,  and  of  a  wisely  designing  mind,  as  he  does  in  the 
most  complex  organizations  of  nature  ;  for  what  are  the  ultimate 
properties  of  matter  but  the  elementary  constituents  of  the  uni- 
versal laws  of  nature,  and  the  ultimate  conditions  of  all  phe- 
nomena. If  design  discovered  in  the  constitution  of  the  universe 
as  finished  proves  a  divine  Former,  by  equal  right  must  the  same 
design  discovered  in  the  elementary  constitution  of  matter  prove  a 
divine  Creator. 


190  THE   CEEATION   OF   THE   WOELD. 

7tli.  Tliose  among  tlieistic  thinkers  wlio  have  been  temj)ted 
to  regard  matter  as  eternal  and  self-existent,  have  been  influenced 
by  the  vain  hope  of  explaining  thereby  the  existence  of  moral 
evil  in  consistency  with  the  holiness  of  God.  They  would  refer  all 
the  phenomena  of  sin  to  an  essentially  evil  principle  inherent  in 
matter,  and  would  justify  Grod  by  maintaining  that  he  has  done 
all  that  in  him  lay  to  limit  that  evil.  Now,  besides  the  inconsis- 
tency of  this  theory's  attempt  to  vindicate  the  holiness  of  Grod  at 
the  expense  of  his  independence,  it  proceeds  upon  absurd  princi- 
ples, as  appears  from  the  following  considerations  :  (1.)  Moral 
evil  is  in  its  essence  an  attribute  of  spirit.  To  refer  it  to  a  ma- 
terial origin  must  logically  lead  to  the  grossest  materialism.  (2.) 
The  entire  Christian  system  of  religion,  and  the  example  of  Christ 
is  in  opposition  to  that  asceticism  and  "  neglecting  of  the  body," 
(Col.  ii.,  23)  which  necessarily  springs  from  the  view  that  matter 
is  the  ground  of  sin.  (3.)  When  God  created  the  material  uni- 
verse he  pronounced  his  works  "  very  good."  (4.)  The  second 
Person  of  the  holy  trinity  assumed  a  real  material  body  into  per- 
sonal union  with  himself  (5.)  The  material  creation,  now 
"  made  subject  to  vanity"  through  man's  sin,  is  to  be  renovated 
and  made  the  temple  in  which  the  Godman  shall  dwell  forever. — 
See  below.  Chap.  XXXYI.,  question  17.  (6.)  The  work  of  Clnist  in 
delivering  his  people  from  their  sin  docs  not  contemplate  the  re- 
nunciation of  the  material  part  of  our  natures,  but  our  bodies, 
which  are  now  "  the  members  of  Christ,"  and  the  "  temples  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  are  at  the  resurrection  to  be  transformed  into  the 
likeness  of  his  glorified  body.  Yet  nothing  could  be  more  absurd 
than  to  argue  that  the  aw/fa  TTvevitarifidv  is  not  as  litterally  ma- 
terial as  the  present  aw/^a  ipvxticbv.  (7.)  If  the  cause  of  evil  is 
essentially  inherent  in  matter,  and  if  its  past  developments  have 
occurred  in  spite  of  God's  efforts  to  limit  it,  what  certain  ground 
of  confidence  can  any  of  us  have  for  the  future. 

5.  Prove  that  the  loorh  of  creation  is  in  Scripture  attributed 
to  God  absolutely,  i.  c.,  to  each  of  the  three  i^ersons  of  the  Trinity 
coordinately,  and  not  to  either  as  his  special  personal  function  ? 

1st.  To  the  Godhead  absolutely,  Gen.  i.,  1,  26.  2d.  To  the 
Father,  1  Cor.  viii.,  6.  3d.  To  the  Son,  John  i.,  3  ;  Col.  i.,  16,  17. 
4th.  To  the  Holy  Spirit,  Gen.  i.,  2  ;  Job  xxvi.,  13  ;  Ps.  civ.,  30. 


GEOLOGY.  191 

6.  Ho\o  can  it  he  proved  that  no  creature  can  create  ? 

1st.  From  the  nature  of  the  work.  It  appears  to  us  that  the 
work  of  absolute  creation  ex  niliilo  is  an  infinite  exercise  of  power. 
It  is  to  us  inconceivable  because  infinite,  and  it  can  belong,  there- 
fore, only  to  that  Being  who,  for  the  same  reason,  is  incomprehen- 
sible. 2d.  The  ScrijDtures  distinguish  Jehovah  from  all  creatures, 
and  from  false  gods,  and  establish  his  sovereignty  and  rights  as  , 
the  true  God  by  the  fact  that  he  is  the  Creator,  Is.  xxxvii.,  16  ; 
xl,  12,  13  ;  liv.,  5  ;  Ps.  xcvi.,  5  ;  Jer.  x.,  11,  12.  3d.  If  it 
were  admitted  that  a  creature  could  create,  then  the  works  of 
creation  would  never  avail  to  lead  the  creature  to  an  infallible 
knowledge  that  his  creator  was  the  eternal  and  self-existent  God. 

7.  What  opinion  do  modern  geologists  entertain  as  to  the  an- 
tiquity of  our  glohe,  and  upon  what  does  that  opinion  rest  ? 

The  universal  opinion  of  all  geologists.  Christians  and  infidels, 
theists  and  atheists,  is  that  the  material  composing  our  globe  has 
been  in  existence  for  incalculable  ages  ;  that  it  has  passed  through 
many  successive  stages  in  its  transition  probably  from  a  gaseous, 
certainly  from  a  molten  condition,  to  its  present  constitution  ; 
and  that  it  has  successively  been  inhabited  by  many  different  or- 
ders of  organized  beings,  each  in  turn  adapted  to  the  i)hysical 
conditions  of  the  globe  in  its  successive  stages,  and  generally 
marked  in  each  stage  by  an  advancing  scale  of  organization,  from 
the  more  elementary  to  the  more  complex  and  more  perfect  forms, 
until  the  advent  of  man,  the  last  and  most  perfect  of  all,  about 
six  thousand  years  ago.  The  facts  upon  which  this  opinion  is 
founded  are  barely  indicated  in  the  following  summary  condensed 
from  the  2d  chapter  of  Pres.  Hitchcock's  able  work  on  "  Ke- 
ligion  of  Geology." 

1st.  The  rocks  are  in  their  present  form  evidently  the  result 
of  the  operation  of  second  causes.  "  Some  of  them  have  been 
melted  and  reconsolidated,  and  crowded  in  between  others,  or 
spread  over  them.  Others  have  been  worn  down  into  mud,  sand, 
and  gravel,  by  water  and  other  agents,  and  again  cemented  to- 
gether, after  having  enveloped  multitudes  of  animals  and  plants, 
which  are  now  embedded  as  organic  remains."  They  bear  upon 
them  as  indubitable  marks  of  change  and  wear  as  any  of  the  an- 
cient works  of  man.     To  infer  that  they  were  created  in  their 


192  THE  CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

present  form  would  violate  every  principle  of  analogical  reasoning 
upon  which  all  science  proceeds. 

2d.  "  Processes  are  now  going  on  by  which  rocks  are  formed, 
on  a  small  scale,  of  the  same  character  as  those  which  constitute 
the  groat  mass  of  the  earth.  Hence  it  is  fair  to  infer  (1.)  that 
all  the  rocks  were  formed  in  a  similar  manner.  (2.)  That  by  as- 
certaining the  rate  at  which  rocks  are  now  forming  we  may  form 
some  estimate  as  to  the  time  requisite  to  produce  those  constitut- 
ing the  crust  of  the  earth." 

3d.  All  the  stratified  rocks,  especially  that  large  proportion  of 
them  which  contain  the  remains  of  animals  and  plants,  appear  to 
have  been  formed  from  fragments  of  other  rocks,  worn  down  by 
the  action  of  water  and  atmospheric  agencies.  Yet  this  process 
is  very  slow. 

4th.  "  Yet  there  must  have  been  time  enough,  since  the  crea- 
tion, to  deposit  at  least  ten  miles  of  rocks  in  perpendicular  thick- 
ness," by  this  process  of  attrition,  'washing,  precipitation,  drying, 
and  hardening  by  means  of  heat,  pressure,  and  the  admixture  of 
iron  or  lime. 

5th.  It  is  certain  that  since  man  existed,  or  in  the  last  six 
thousand  years,  materials  for  the  production  of  rock  have  not  ac- 
cumulated to  the  average  thickness  of  more  than  one  or  two  hun- 
dred feet,  or  about  one  five  hundreth  part  of  the  entire  thickness 
of  the  stratified  rocks  that  have  been  formed  since  the  creation. 

6th.  During  the  deposition  of  the  stratified  rocks  many  changes 
must  have  occuiTcd  in  the  temperature  and  the  materials  held  in 
solution  by  the  waters  which  deposited  them,  and  in  the  positions 
of  the  rocks  themselves,  as  they  have  been  bent  and  dislocated 
while  in  a  soft  state. 

7th.  "  Numerous  races  of  animals  and  plants  must  have  occu- 
pied the  globe  previous  to  those  which  now  inhabit  it,  and  have 
successively  passed  away  as  catastrophes  occurred,  or  as  the  climate 
became  unfit  for  their  residence.  Thirty  thousand  species  have 
already  been  dug  from  the  rocks,  and  with  few  exceptions  none 
of  them  corresponding  to  those  now  living  upon  the  earth."  "  Not 
less  than  four  or  five,  and  probably  more,  entire  races  have  passed 
away,  and  been  succeeded  by  recent  ones,  so  that  the  globe  has 
actually  changed  all  its  inhabitants  half  a  dozen  times." 

8th.  Even  since  all  the  various  strata  of  rocks  have  been  in 


GEOLOGY.  193 

their  present  state  and  position  changes  have  been  accomplished, 
e.  g.,  in  the  formation  of  deltas,  and  in  the  gi'adual  wearing  away  of 
solid  rock  in  channels  by  rivers  (often  hundreds  of  feet  deep,  and 
for  miles  in  length),  which  must  have  required  many  thousands 
of  years. 

9th.  The  primary  rocks,  which  everywhere  form  the  founda- 
tion upon  which  the  stratified  rocks  rest,  and  out  of  the  fragments 
of  which,  by  wasliing  and  wearing,  the  stratified  rocks  have  been 
formed,  were  themselves  evidently  formed  when  the  whole  globe 
was  gradually  cooling  from  a  condition  of  universal  fusion  from 
heat. 

8.  What  are  the  different  methods  which  have  been  suggested 
of  reconciling  the  facts  developed  by  geology  luith  the  truth  of  the 
Mosaic  record  of  creation  ? 

1st.  The  method  adopted  by  Dr.  Chalmers,  President  Hitch- 
cock, and  the  great  majority  of  Christian  geologists,  is  as  follows  : 
The  first  vt-rse  of  Genesis,  disconnected  from  the  subsequent  con- 
text, affirms  the  truth  that  in  the  beginning,  at  some  remote  and 
imrevealed  period  in  the  past,  God  created  the  whole  universe  out 
of  nothing  ;  and  then  after  an  interval,  the  measure  of  which  is 
not  given,  the  subsequent  verses  relate  the  general  order  in  which 
God,  in  the  space  of  six  natural  days,  established  the  present 
order  of  this  world,  adapting  it  to  the  residence  of  its  present 
inhabitants,  and  in  which  he  created  the  present  races  of  plants 
and  animals.  This  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the 
creation  was  advanced  as  probable  by  many  eminent  biblical 
scholars  before  the  rise  of  geological  science,  and  it  is  now  almost 
universally  adopted  by  theologians  as  well  as  by  geologists. 
There  appears  to  be  no  objection  to  it  upon  any  ground,  and,  as 
a  general  adjustment,  it  appears  to  be  the  best  possible  in  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge.  It  is  only  a  general  adjustment, 
however,  leaving  many  questions  of  detail  unsolved,  both  as  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  record  of  the  six  days'  work,  and  as  to 

.  the  reconciliation  of  the  facts  of  geology,  and  the  present  scien- 
tific interjiretation  thereof,  with  the  inspired  record. 

2d.  In  order  to  avoid  several  difficulties  experienced  in  at- 
tempting to  reconcile  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  six  days'  work 

Iwith  the  science.  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith  proposed  to  supplement 


194  THE  CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

the  above  method  of  reconciliation  Avith  the  hypothesis  that  the 
term  earth  in  Genesis  did  not  signify  the  whole  globe,  but  "  the 
part  of  our  globe  which  God  was  adapting  for  the  dwelling-place 
of  man  and  animals  connected  with  him,"  that  is,  "  a  large  part 
of  Asia,  lying  between  the  Caucasian  Ridge,  the  Caspian  Sea,  and 
Tartary  on  the  north,  the  Persian  and  Indian  Seas  on  the  south, 
and  the  high  mountain  ridges  which  run  at  a  considerable  dis- 
tance on  their  eastern  and  western  flanks." 

3d.  Many  have  argued  that  the  days  spoken  of  in  this  pas- 
sage in  Genesis  were  not  natural  days  of  twenty-four  hours, 
"  but  periods  of  great,  though  indefinite  length,  during  which  all 
the  changes  exliibited  by  the  strata  of  rocks  took  place,"  and  in 
which  the  several  orders  of  organized  vegetable  and  animal  beings 
were  successively  created,  man  being  brought  into  existence  at 
the  end  of  the  closing  day  of  creation,  and  the  Sabbath  day  of 
God's  rest  from  his  creation  work  continuing  ever  since.  This 
view  has  been  eloquently  argued  and  illustrated  in  a  comparison 
of  the  Mosaic  text  with  the  facts  developed  by  geology,  by  the 
late  Hugh  Miller,  in  his  last  work,  "  The  testimony  of  the  Rocks," 
After  all,  however,  theologians  and  geologists  agree  in  regarding 
this  method  of  reconciliation  as  doing  equal  violence  to  the  lan- 
suao-e  of  the  record  and  to  the  facts  of  the  science. — President 
Hitchcock's  "  Religion  of  Geology." 

9.  What  principles  ought  to  he  home  in  mind  by  Christians 
in  vieiu  of  apparent  discrepancies  between  the  interpretation  of 
nature  by  science,  and  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  by 
theologians  ? 

1st.  All  truth  must  be  consistent.  God's  works  and  God's 
word  are  alike  absolute  truth  ;  whatever  discrepancies  appear,  the 
difficulty  must  wholly  exist  in  man's  imperfect  interpretation, 
either  of  the  works  upon  the  one  hand,  or  of  the  word  upon  the 
other. 

2d.  Revelation  was  not  designed  to  anticipate  the  natural 
progress  of  science,  consequently  the  Scriptures  teach  us  nothing 
concerning  the  interpretation  of  the  phenomenal  world  of  nature, 
but  uniformly  speak  of  phenomena  as  they  appear,  and  in  the 
common  language  of  the  age  and  people  among  wliom  they  were 
written,  and  never  of  physical  causes  or  laws  as  they  are  In  fact. 


REVELATION   AND    SCIENCE,  195 

Thus  they  speak  of  the  sun  "rising,"  "setting,"  "going  back," 
"  standing  still,"  etc.,  etc. 

3d.  From  the  commencement  of  modern  science  apparent  in- 
consistencies between  nature  and  revelation  have  been  constantly 
emerging,  which,  for  the  time,  have  occasioned  great  offense  to 
zealous  believers,  but  in  every  instance,  without  exception,  the 
error  has  been  found  to  exist  either  in  the  too  hasty  generalizations 
of  science  from  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  facts,  or  from  a  pre- 
judiced interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  invariably  matured 
science  has  been  found  not  only  to  harmonize  perfectly  with  the 
letter  of  the  word  naturally  interpreted,  but,  moreover,  gloriously 
to  illustrate  the  grand  moral  principles  and  doctrines  therein 
revealed. 

4th.  There  is  no  difficulty  experienced  in  the  attempt  to  re- 
concile Moses'  account  of  the  "genesis  of  the  heavens  and  earth" 
with  the  science  of  geology,  which  is  different  either  in  kind  or 
degree  from  those  experienced  in  every  attempt  to  reconcile  pro- 
2)hecy  with  the  facts  of  history.  History  and  geological  science 
are  both  in  transitu  ;  when  they  are  finished  the  perfect  har- 
mony of  both  with  revelation  will  be  apparent  to  all. 

5th.  Christians  should  always  rejoice  in  every  advance  of 
science,  being  assured  that  thereby  the  truth  of  their  religion  and 
the  glory  of  their  God  must  be  confirmed  and  manifested.  They 
sliould  equally  avoid  all  premature  adjustments  of  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture  to  imperfect  science  in  process  of  development, 
and  all  injurious  and  impotent  jealousies  of  scientific  discoveries 
or  speculations,  when  apparently  hostile  to  their  traditional  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture.      Perfect  faith  casteth  out  all 

FEAR. 


C  HAP  T  E  R    XII. 

ANGELS. 

1.  Wliat  are  the  different  senses  in  ivhich  the  word  dyyeXog, 
angel,  or  messenger,  is  used  in  Scripture  ? 

"  Ordinary  messengers,  Job  i.,  14  ;  Luke  vii.,  24  ;  ix,,  52  ; 
prophets,  Isa.  xlii.,  19;  Mai.  iii.,  1;  priests,  Mai.  ii.,  7;  ministers 
of  the  New  Testament,  Rev.  i.,  20  ;  also  impersonal  agents,  as 
pillar  of  cloud,  Ex.  xiv.,  19  ;  pestilence,  2  Sam.  xxiv.,  16,  17  ; 
winds,  Ps.  civ.,  4 ;  plagues,  called  '  evil  angels,'  Ixxviii.,  49  ; 
Paul's  thorn  in  the  flesh,  'angel  of  Satan,'  2  Cor.  xii.,  7." 
Also  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  "  Angel  of  his  presence  ;" 
"  Angel  of  the  Covenant,"  Isa.  Ixiii.,  9  ;  Mai.  iii.,  1.  But  the 
tei'm  is  chiefly  applied  to  the  heavenly  intelligences.  Matt,  xxv., 
31.— See  Kitto's  Bib.  Ency. 

2.  fVhat  are  the  scrijJtural  designations  of  angels,  and  how 
far  are  those  desigiiations  expressive  of  their  nature  and  offices  ? 

Good  angels  (for  evil  spirits,  see  question  13)  are  designated 
in  Scripture  as  to  their  nature,  dignity  and  power,  as  "  spirits," 
Heb.  i.,  14 ;  "  thrones,  dominions,  principalities,  powers,  mights," 
Eph.  i.,  21,  and  Col.  i.,  16  ;  "sons  of  God,"  Luke  xx.,  36  ;  Job 
i.,  6  ;  "mighty  angels,"  and  "powerful  in  strength,"  2  Thes.  i., 
7  ;  Ps.  ciii.,  20  ;  "holy  angels,"  "elect  angels,"  Luke  ix.,  26  ;  1 
Tim.  v.,  21  ;  and  as  to  the  offices  they  sustain  in  relation  to  God 
and  man,  they  are  designated  as  "  angels  or  messengers,"  and  as 
"  ministering  spirits,"  Heb.  i.,  13,  14. 

3.  What  were  the  cherubim  ? 

"They  were  ideal  creatures,  compounded  of  four  parts,  those 
namely,  of  a  man,  an  ox,  a  lion,  and  an  eagle."     "  The  predomi- 


CHERUBIM.  197 

nant  appearance  was  that  of  a  man,  but  the  number  of  faces,  feet, 
and  hands  differed  according  to  circumstances." — Ezek.  i.,  6,  com- 
pare with  Ezek.  xli.,  18,  19,  and  Ex.  xxv.,  20. 

To  the  same  ideal  beings  is  applied  the  designation  "  living 
creatures,"  (Ezek.  i.,  5-22  ;  x.,  15,  17  ;  Kev.  iv.,  6-9  ;  v.,  6-14  ; 
vi.,  1-7 ;  vii.,  11  ;  xiv.,  3  ;  xv.  7  ;  xix,,  4,)  rendered  in  our  ver- 
sion "  beasts." 

"  They  were  symbolical  of  the  highest  properties  of  creature 
life,  and  of  these  as  the  outgoings  and  manifestation  of  the  divine 
life  ;  but  they  were  typical  of  redeemed  and  glorified  manhood, 
or  proplietical  representations  of  it,  as  that  in  which  these  pro- 
perties were  to  be  combined  and  exhibited. 

"  They  were  appointed  immediately  after  the  fall  to  man's 
original  place  in  the  garden,  and  to  his  office  in  connection  with 
the  tree  of  life." — Gren.  iii.,  24. 

"  The  other  and  more  common  connection  in  which  the  cherub 
appears  is  with  the  throne  or  peculiar  dwelling-place  of  God.  In 
the  holy  of  holies  of  the  tabernacle,  Ex.  xxv.,  22,  he  was  called 
the  God  who  dwelleth  between  and  sitteth  upon  the  cherubim, 
1  Sam.  iv,,  4 ;  Ps.  Ixxx.,  1 ;  Ezek.  i.,  26,  28  ;  whose  glory  is 
above  the  cherubim.  In  Rev.  iv,,  6,  we  read  of  the  living  crea- 
tures who  were  in  the  midst  of  the  throne  and  around  about  it." 

"  What  does  this  bespeak  but  the  wonderful  fact  brought  out 
in  the  history  of  redemj^tion,  that  man's  nature  is  to  be  exalted 
to  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Godhead  ?  In  Christ  it  is  taken, 
so  to  speak,  into  the  very  bosom  of  the  Deity  ;  and  because  it  is 
so  highly  honored  in  him,  it  shall  attain  to  more  than  angelic 
glory  in  his  members." — Fairbairn's  Typology,  Pt.  II.,  Chapter 
I.,  Section  3. 

4.  What  is  the  etymology  of  the  loord  seraphim,  and  lohat  is 
taught  in  Sci'ipture  concerning  them  ? 

The  word  signifies  burning,  bright,  dazzling.  It  occurs  in 
the  Bible  only  once. — Isa.  vi.,  2,  6,  It  probably  presents,  under 
a  different  aspect,  the  ideal  beings  commonly  designated  cheru- 
bim and  living  creatures. 

5.  Is  there  any  evidence  that  angels  arc  of  various  orders  a7id 
ranks ? 


198  ANGELS. 

That  sucli  distinctions  certainly  exist  appears  evident,  1st. 
From  the  language  of  Scripture,  Gabriel  is  distiguished  as  one  that 
stands  in  the  presence  of  God,  (Luke  i.,  19,)  evidently  in  some 
preeminent  sense  ;  and  Michael  as  one  of  the  chief  princes,  Dan. 
X.,  13.  Observe  also  the  epithets  archangel,  thrones,  dominions, 
principalities,  powers,  Jude  9;  Eph.  i.,  21.  2d.  From  the  analog}' 
of  the  fallen  angels,  see  Eph.  ii.,  2;  Matt,  ix.,  34.  3d.  From  the 
analogy  of  human  society  and  of  the  universal  creation.  Through- 
out all  God's  Works  gradation  of  rank  prevails. 

6.  Do  the  Scriptures  speak  of  more  than  one  a^rcliangel,  and 
is  he  to  he  considered  a  creature  ? 

This  term  occurs  but  twice  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in 
both  instances  it  is  used  in  the  singular  number,  and  preceded  by 
the  definite  article  6',  1  Tlies.  iv.,  16  ;  Jude  9.  Thus  the  term  is 
evidently  restricted  to  one  person,  called,  Jude  9,  Michael,  who, 
in  Dan.  x.,  13,  and  xii.,  1,  is  called  "one  of  the  chief  princes," 
and  "  the  great  prince,"  and  in  Kev.  xii.,  7,  is  said  to  have  fought 
with  his  angels  against  the  dragon  and  his  angels. 

Many  suppose  that  the  archangel  is  the  Son  of  God.  Others 
suppose  that  he  is  one  of  the  highest  class  of  creatures,  since  he 
is  called  "owe  of  the  chief  princes  "  Dan.  x.,  13  ;  and  since  divine 
attributes  are  never  ascribed  to  him. 

7.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  number  and 
power  of  angels  ? 

1st.  Concerning  their  number,  revelation  detennines  only  that 
it  is  very  great.  "  Thousand  thousands,  and  ten  thousand  times 
ten  thousand,"  Dan.  vii.,  10.  "More  than  twelve  legions  of 
angels,"  Matt,  xxvi.,  53.  "  Multitude  of  the  heavenly  host," 
Luke  ii.,  13.     "  Myriads  of  angels,"  Heb.  xii.,  22. 

2d,  Concerning  their  power,  the  Scriptures  teach  that  it  is  very 
gi-eat  when  exercised  both  in  the  material  and  in  the  spiritual 
worlds.  They  are  called  "  mighty  angels,"  and  are  said  to  "  ex- 
cel in  strength,"  2  Thess.  i.,  7  ;  Ps.  ciii.,  20  ;  2  Kings  xix.,  35. 
Their  power,  however,  is  not  creative,  but,  like  that  of  man,  it 
can  be  exercised  only  coordinately  with  the  general  laws  of  na- 
ture, in  the  absolute  sense  of  that  word. 


SATAN,  199 

8.  What  arc  their  employments  ? 

1st.  They  behold  the  face  of  God  in  heaven,  adore  the  divine 
perfections,  study  every  revelation  he  makes  of  himself  in  provi- 
dence and  redemption,  and  are  perfectly  blessed  in  his  presence 
and  service. — Matt,  xviii.,  10  ;  Eev.  v.,  11  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  12. 

2d.  Grod  employs  them  as  his  instruments  in  administering 
the  aifairs  of  his  providence,  Gen.  xxviii.,  12  ;  Dan.  x.,  13.  (1.) 
The  hnv  "  was  ordained  by  angels,"  Gal.  iii.,  19  ;  Acts  vii.,  53  ; 
Heb.  ii.,  2.  (2.)  They  are  instruments  of  good  to  God's  people, 
Heb.  i.,  14  ;  Acts  xii.,  7  ;  Ps.  xei.,  10-12.  (3.)  They  execute 
judgment  upon  God's  enemies.  Acts  xii.,  23  ;  2  Kings  xix.,  35  ; 
1  Chron.  xxi.,  16.  (4.)  They  will  officiate  in  the  final  judgment, 
in  separating  the  good  from  the  bad,  in  gathering  the  elect,  and  in 
bearing  them  up  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air.  Matt,  xiii.,  30-39  ; 
xxiv.,  31  ;  1  Thess.  iv.,  17. 

9.  How  are  apparitions  of  angels  to  he  accounted  for  ? 

See  Num.  xxii.,  31,  etc.  What  was  apparent  to  the  senses 
were  doubtless  miraculously  constituted  bodies  assumed  for  the 
occasion  for  the  purpose  of  holding  intercourse  with  man  through 
his  bodily  senses,  and  then  laid  aside. 

10.  What  are  the  names  hy  lohich  Sata7i  is  distinguished,  and 
what  is  their  import  ? 

Satan,  which  signifies  adversary,  Luke  x.,  18.  The  Devil 
{did^oXo^  always  occurs  in  the  singular)  signifying  slanderer.  Rev. 
XX.,  2  ;  Apollyon,  which  means  destroyer,  and  Abbadon,  Rev. 
ix.,  11  ;  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  devils,  from  the  god  of  the 
Ekronites,  chief  among  the  heathen  divinities,  all  of  which  the 
Jews  regarded  as  devils,  2  Kings,  i.,  2  ;  Matt,  xii.,  24  ;  Angel  of 
the  Bottomless  Pit,  Rev.,  ix.,  11  ;  Prince  of  the  World,  John 
xii.,  31  ;  Prince  of  Darkness,  Eph.  vi.,  12  ;  A  Roaring  Lion,  1 
Pet.  v.,  8  ;  a  Sinner  from  the  Beginning,  1  John  iii.,  8  ;  Accuser, 
Rev,  xii.,  10  ;  Behal,  2  Cor.,  vi.,  15  ;  Deceiver,  Rev.  xx.,  10  ; 
Dragon,  Rev.  xii.,  7  ;  Liar  and  Murderer,  John  viii.,  44  ;  Levia- 
than, Is.,  xxvii.,  1  ;  Lucifer,  Is.  xiv.,  12  ;  Serpent,  Is.  xxvii.,  1  ; 
Tormentor,  Matt,  xviii.,  34  ;  God  of  this  World,  2  Cor.  iv.,  4  ; 
he  that  hath  the  Power  of  Death,  Heb.  ii.,  14. — See  Cruden's 
Concordance. 


200  ANGELS, 

11.  Hoiv  may  it  he  proved  that  Satan  is  a  personal  being,  and 
not  a  mere  personification  of  evil  ? 

Throughout  all  the  various  books  of  Scripture  Satan  is  always 
consistently  spoken  of  as  a  person,  and  personal  attributes  are 
predicated  of  him.  Such  passages  as  Matt,  iv.,  1-11,  and  John 
viii.,  44,  are  decisive. 

12.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  conce7'ning  the  relation  of 
Satan  to  other  evil  spirits  and  to  our  world  ? 

Other  evil  spirits  are  called  "his  angels,"  Matt,  xxv.,  41  ;  and 
he  is  called  "  Prince  of  Devils,"  Matt,  ix.,  34  ;  and  "  Prince  of  the 
powers  of  the  Air,"  and  "  Prince  of  Darkness,"  Eph.  vi.,  12.  This 
indicates  that  he  is  the  master  spirit  of  evil. 

His  relation  to  this  world  is  indicated  by  the  history  of  the 
Fall,  2  Cor.  xi.,  3  ;  Rev.  xii,,  9,  and  by  such  expressions  as  "God 
of  this  World,"  2  Cor.  iv.,  4  ;  and  "  Spirit  that  worketh  in  the 
children  of  disobedience,"  Eph,  ii,,  2  ;  wicked  men  are  said  to  be 
his  cliildreu,  1  John  iii.,  10  ;  he  blinds  the  minds  of  those  that 
believe  not  and  leads  them  captive  at  his  will,  2  Tim.  ii.,  26  ;  he 
also  pains,  harasses  and  tempts  God's  true  people  as  far  as  is  per- 
mitted for  their  ultimate  good,  Luke  xxii.,  31  ;  2  Cor.  xii.,  7  ;  1 
Thess.  ii.,  18. 

13.  What  are  the  terms  hy  which  fallen  spirits  are  desig- 
nated ? 

The  Greek  word  6  didBoXog,  the  devil,  is  in  the  original  applied 
only  to  Beelzebub.  Other  evil  spirits  are  called  datfioveg^  dtemons, 
Mark  v.,  12  (translated  devils)  ;  unclean  spirits,  Mark  v.,  13  ; 
angels  of  the  devil.  Matt,  xxv.,  41  ;  principalities,  powers,  rulers 
of  the  darkness  of  this  world,  Eph.  vi.,  12  ;  angels  that  sinned,  2 
Pet.  ii,,  4  ;  angels  that  kept  not  theii-  first  estate,  but  left  their 
own  habitation,  Jude  vi  ;  lying  spirits,  2  Chron,  xviii.  22. 

14.  What  poioer  or  agency  over  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men 
is  ascribed  to  them  ? 

Satan,  like  all  other  finite  beings,  can  only  be  in  one  place  at  a 
time  ;  yet  all  that  is  done  by  his  agents  being  attributed  to  him, 
he  appears  to  be  practically  ubiquitous. 


FALLEN    ANGELS.  201 

It  is  certain  that  at  times  at  least  they  nave  exercised  an  in- 
explicable influence  over  the  bodies  of  men,  yet  that  influence  is 
entirely  subject  to  God's  control,  Job.  ii.,  7  ;  Luke  xiii.,  16  ; 
Acts  X.,  38.  They  have  caused  and  aggravated  diseases,  and  ex- 
cited appetites  and  passions,  1  Cor.  v.,  5.  Satan,  in  some  sense, 
has  the  power  of  death,  Heb.  ii.,  14. 

With  respect  to  the  souls  of  men,  Satan  and  his  angels  are 
utterly  destitute  of  any  power  either  to  change  the  heart  or  to 
coerce  the  will,  their  influence  being  simply  moral,  and  exercised 
in  the  way  of  deception,  suggestion,  and  persuasion.  The  de- 
scriptive phrases  applied  by  the  Scriptures  to  their  working  are 
such  as — "  the  deceivableness  of  unrighteousness,"  "  power,  signs, 
lying  wonders,"  2  Thess.  ii.,  9, 10  ;  he  "  transforms  himself  into  an 
angel  of  light,"  2  Cor.  xi.,  14.  If  he  can  deceive  or  persuade  he 
uses  ''wiles,"  Eph.  vi.,  11  ;  "snares,"  1  Tim.  iii.,  7  ;  "  depths," 
Rev.  ii.,  24  ;  he  "  blinds  the  mind,"  2  Cor.  iv.,  4  ;  "  leads  captive 
the  will,"  2  Tim.  ii.,  26  ;-  and  so  "deceives  the  whole  world," 
Rev.  xii.,  9.  If  he  can  not  persuade  he  uses  "  fiery  darts,"  Eph. 
vi.,  16  ;  and  "  buffetings,"  2  Cor.  xii.,  7. 

As  examples  of  his  influence  in  tempting  men  to  sin  the 
Scriptures  cite  the  case  of  Adam,  Gen.  iii.;  of  David,  1  Chron. 
xxi.,  1  ;  of  Judas,  Luke  xxii.,  3  ;  Ananias  and  Saphira,  Acts  v., 
3  ;  and  the  temptation  of  our  blessed  Lord,  Matt.  iv. 

15.  Where  do  they  reside,  and  ivhat  is  the  true  interpretation 
of  Eph.  ii.,  2,  and  vi.,  12  ? 

These  passages  simply  declare  that  evil  spirits  belong  to  the 
unseen  spiritual  world,  and  not  to  our  mundane  system.  Nothing 
is  taught  us  in  Scripture  as  to  the  place  of  their  residence,  further 
than  that  they  originally  dwelt  in  and  fell  from  heaven,  that  they 
now  have  access  to  men  on  earth,  and  that  they  will  be  finally 
sealed  up  in  the  lake  of  fire  prepared  for  them,  Rev.  xx.,  10 ; 
Matt.  XXV.  41. 

16.  By  what  terms  were  those  possessed  by  evil  spirits  desig- 
nated ? 

They  are  called  "  demoniacs,"  translated  possessed  lolth  devils, 
Matt,  iv.,  24  ;  "having  the  spirit  of  an  unclean  devil,"  Matt,  xv., 


202  ANGELS. 

22  ;  "  oppressed  of  the  devil,"  Acts  x.,  38  ;  "  lunatics,"  Matt. 
xvii.,  15. 

17.  What  arguments  are  urged  hy  those  who  t^egard  the  de- 
moniacs mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  as  simply  diseased  or 
deranged  ? 

That  we  can  not  discriminate  between  the  effects  of  de- 
moniacal possession  and  disease.  That  precisely  the  same 
symptoms  have,  in  other  cases,  been  treated  as  disease  and 
cured. 

Tliat,  like  witchcraft,  the  experience  of  such  possessions  has 
been  confined  to  the  most  ignorant  ages  of  the  world. 

They  argue  further  that  this  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with 
clearly  revealed  principles.  1st.  That  the  souls  of  dead  men  go 
immediately  either  to  heaven  or  hell.  2d.  That  fallen  angels  are 
already  shut  up  in  chains  and  darkness  in  expectation  of  the  final 
judgment,  2  Pet.  ii.,  4  ;  Jude  vi. 

They  attempt  to  explain  away  the  language  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  upon  this  subject  by  afiirming,  that  as  it  was  no  part 
of  their  design  to  instruct  men  in  the  true  science  of  nature  or 
disease,  they  conformed  their  language  on  such  subjects  to  the 
prevalent  opinions  of  the  j^eople  they  addressed,  calling  diseases 
by  the  popular  name,  without  intending  thereby  to  countenance 
the  theory  of  the  nature  of  the  disease,  out  of  which  the  name 
originated.  Just  as  we  now  call  crazed  people  "  lunatics,"  with- 
out believing  in  the  influence  of  the  moon  upon  them. — Kitto's 
Bib.  Ency. 

18.  Hoiv  may  it  be  proved  that  the  demoniacs  of  the  New 
Testament  were  really  possessed  of  evil  spirits  ? 

The  simple  narratives  of  all  the  evangelists  put  it  beyond  per- 
adveuture  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  did  believe,  and  wished 
others  to  believe,  that  the  demoniacs  were  really  possessed  with 
devils. 

They  distinguish  between  possession  and  disease,  Mark  i.,  32; 
Luke  vi.,  17,  18. 

The  "  daemons,"  as  distinct  from  the  "  possessed,"  spoke 
(Mark  v.,  12),  were  addressed,  commanded  and  rebuked  by 
Christ,  Mark   i.,  25,  34;   ix.,   25;  Matt,  viii.,  32;   xvii.,  18. 


DEMONAICS.  203 

Their  desires,  requests  and  passions  are  distinguished  from 
those  of  the  possessed,  Matt,  viii.,  31  ;  Mark  ix.,  26,  etc.  The 
number  of  daemons  in  one  person  is  mentioned,  Mark  xvi.,  9. 
They  went  out  of  the  "possessed"  into  the  swine,  Luke  viii., 
32.  We  never  speak  of  the  moon  entering  into,  and  sore 
vexing  a  man,  or  being  cast  out  of  a  lunatic,  or  of  the  moon 
crying  aloud,  etc.  The  argument  of  those  who  would  explain 
away  the  force  of  Christ's  language  on  this  subject,  therefore, 
fails. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

PROVIDENCE. 

1.  Define  the  term  providence. 

See  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  V.,  and  L.  Cat.,  question 
18,  and  S.  Cat.,  question  11.  Providence,  from  pro  and  video, 
literally  signifies  fwegght.  Turrettin  defines  this  term  as  includ- 
ing, in  its  widest  sense,  1st,  forelinowledge  ;  2d,  foreordination  ; 
3d,  the  efficacious  administration  of  the  thing  decEged.  But  in 
its  common  and  technically  proper  sense,  providence  designates 
simply  God's  temporal  preservation  and  governing  of  all  things 
according  to  his  eternal  purpose. 

2.  What  are  the  three  principal  theories  respecting  the  rela- 
tion which  Ood  sustains  to  the  universe  ? 

All  the  various  views  respecting  God's  relation  to  the  uni- 
verse entertained  among  men  may  be  classed  under  one  or  other 
of  the  following  heads,  and  in  general  terms  stated  as  follows  : 

1st.  The  deistical,  including  those  views  which  admitting 
more  or  less  fully  that,  when  God  created  the  universe,  he  com- 
municated their  inherent  properties  to  all  material  elements  and 
to  spirits,  and  made  them  in  their  interaction  subject  to  certain 
general  laws,  so  constituted,  as  to  bring  forth  in  the  ceaseless 
evolutions  of  events  all  his  preordained  ends,  yet  deny  that  God 
continues  in  immediate  contact  with  each  individual  creature,  or 
that  he  is  now  concerned  in  constant  supervision  and  control  of 
their  actions  and  their  destinies.  His  relation  to  the  universe 
thus  is  like  that  of  the  maker,  not  of  the  keeper  of  a  watch.  The 
actions  of  men,  therefore,  must  either  be  mechanically  deter- 
mined like  those  of  material  bodies,  or  entirely  fortuitous  and  be- 
yond the  influence  of  God. 

2d.  The  pantheistic,  including  all  those  various  views  which 


DIFFERENT   THEORIES.  205 

regard  God  as  the  only  being  in  the  universe,  and  the  creature  as 
in  reality  without  separate  existence,  property,  or  agency,  as  only 
phenomenally  distinct,  and  essentially  more  or  less  transient 
modes  of  the  one  universal  divine  being. — See  above,  Chapter  I., 
question  35. 

3d.  The  true  doctrine,  established  by  Scripture  and  sober 
philosophical  induction,  occupies  intermediate  ground  between 
the  above  extremes.  The  Christian  theory  of  providence  agrees 
with  the  deistical  in  maintaining  that,  at  the  creation,  God  en- 
dowed every  element,  material  or  spiritual,  with  inherent  proper- 
ties after  its  kind,  and  made  them  all  subject  to  general  laws, 
thus  constituting  them  in  a  real  sense  ejfficient  second  causes.  On! 
the  other  hand,  it  maintains,  in  opposition  to  the  deistical  theory, 
that  G6d  continues  to  support  and  control  second  causes  in  their l 
action,  and  so  to  adjust  the  general  laws  which  prevail  in  the 
several  departments  of  nature  as  to  direct  all  events,  whether  the 
actions  of  free  agents  or  of  unconscious  matter,  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  his  own  will. 

As  God  is  infinite  in  his  relation  to  time  and  to  space,  it  is 
evident  that  the  difference  between  the  Deistical  and  Christian 
views  of  providence  does  not  turn  upon  the  question  as  to  the 
time  tvhen  God  makes  provision  for  the  determination  of  each  in- 
dividual event,  but  upon  the  question  as  to  the  nature  of  his  rela- 
ion  to  the  creation.  We  maintain  that  the  creature  "lives,  moves, 
and  has  its  being  in  God,"  and  that  God,  in  the  full  exercise  of 
his  infinite  wisdom,  goodness,  righteousness,  and  power,  so  directs 
and  controls  the  actions  of  free  agents  freely,  and  of  necessary 
agents  necessarily,  as  at  once  not  to  coerce  the  nature  of  the 
agent,  and  yet  infallibly  to  determine  all  things  according  to  his 
eternal  purpose. 

3.  Wherein  does  preservation  consist  ? 

Preservation  is  that  continued  exercise  of  the  divine  energy 
whereby  the  Creator  upholds  all  his  creatures  in  being,  and  in  the 
possession  of  all  their  inherent  properties  and  qualities  with  which 
he  has  endowed  them  at  their  creation,  or  which  they  have  sub- 
sequently acquired  by  habit  or  development. 

4.  On  ivhat  ground  is  it  assumed  that  the  universe  ivould  not 
continue  to  exist  unless  constantly  upheld  hy  God  ? 


206  PROVIDENCE, 

The  old  theologians  lield  that,  as  the  creature  as  such  is  not 
self-existent,  it  could  no  more  continue  to  he  than  it  could  com- 
mence to  be  of  itself,  since  the  cause  of  its  being  is  out  of  itself. 
This  rationalistic  argument,  although  logically  plausible,  is  not 
certain.  As  by  the  law  of  inertia  a  body  once  moved  ah  extra 
will  continue  to  move  until  stopped  ah  extra,  so  it  might  be  that 
a  being  once  created  might  continue  to  exist  until  annihilated  ah 
extra. 

This  doctrine,  however,  is  eminently  congruous  to  that  sense 
of  dependence  which  is  an  essential  element  of  our  religious  na- 
ture, and  it  is  clearly  affirmed  by  Scripture. — Heb.  i.,  3  ;  Neh. 
ix.,  6  ;  Job  x.,  12  ;  Ps.  civ.,  27-30  ;  Acts  xvii.,  28. 

5.  State  the  argument  for  God's  providential  government  of 
the  world  derived  from  his  own  perfections. 

1st.  The  stupendous  fact  that  God  is  infinite  in  his  being,  in 
his  relation  to  time  and  space,  and  in  his  wisdom  and  power, 
makes  it  evident  that  a  universal  providence  is  possible  to  hira, 
and  that  all  the  difficulties  and  apparent  contradictions  involved 
therein  to  the  eye  of  man  are  to  be  referred  to  our  very  limited 
capacity  of  understanding. 

2d.  God's  infinite  wisdom  makes  it  certain  that  he  had  a  defi- 
nite object  in  view  in  the  creation  of  the  universe,  and  that  he 
will  not  fail  in  the  use  of  the  best  means  to  secure  that  object  in 
all  its  parts. 

3d.  His  infinite  goodness  makes  it  certain  that  he  would  not 
leave  his  sensitive  and  intelligent  creatures  to  the  toils  of  a  me- 
chanical, soulless  fate  ;  nor  his  religious  creatures  to  be  divorced 
from  himself,  in  whose  communion  their  highest  life  consists. 

4th.  His  infinite  righteousness  makes  it  certain  that  he  will 
continue  to  govern  and  reward  and  punish  those  creatures  which 
he  has  made  subject  to  moral  obligations. 

6.  State  the  argument  from  conscience. 

Conscience  essentially  involves  a  sense  of  our  direct  moral 
responsibility  to  God  as  a  moral  governor,  and  this,  together  with 
a  profound  sense  of  dependence,  constitutes  that  religious  senti- 
ment wliich  is  common  to  all  men.     But  if  God  be  a  moral  gov- 


ARGUMENT   FROM   INTELLIGENCE   EVINCED   IN    NATURE.      207 

ernor,  he  can  execute  that  function  in  relation  to  a  being  consti- 
tuted of  body  and  soul,  and  conditioned  as  man  is  in  this  world, 
in  no  other  conceivable  way  than  through  a  comprehensive  provi- 
dence, at  once  spiritual  and  physical,  general  and  particular. 

7.  State  the  argument  from  the  intelligence  evinced  in  the 
operations  of  nature. 

The  great  inductive  argument  for  the  being  of  God  is  based 
upon  the  evident  traces  of  design  in  the  universe.  Now,  just  as 
the  traces  of  design  in  the  constitution  of  nature  proves  the  exist- 
ence of  a  designing  mind  in  the  relation  of  creator,  so  the  traces 
of  design  in  the  operations  of  nature  prove  the  existence  of  a  de- 
signing mirid  in  the  relation  of  providential  ruler. 

The  material  elements,  with  their  active  jjroperties,  are  all  in- 
capable of  design,  yet  we  find  all  these  elements  so  adjusted  in  all 
their  proportions  and  relations  as  to  work  harmoniously  in  the 
order  of  certain  general  laws,  and  we  find  these  general  laws  so 
adjusted  in  all  their  intricate  coincidences  and  interferences,  as, 
by  movements  simple  and  complex,  fortuitous  and  regular,  to 
work  out  harmoniously  everywhere  the  most  wisely  and  benefi- 
cently contrived  results.  The  mechanical  and  chemical  properties 
of  material  atoms  ;  the  laws  of  vegetable  and  animal  life  ;  the 
movements  of  sun,  moon  and  stars  in  the  heavens  ;  the  luminous, 
calorific,  and  chemical  radiance  of  the  sun  ;  and  the  instinctive 
and  voluntary  movement  of  every  living  thing  ujwn  the  face  of 
the  earth,  are  all  mutually  acting  and  reacting  without  concert 
or  possible  design  of  theii'  own  ;  yet  everywhere  bringing  forth 
tlie  most  wise  and  beneficent  results.  As  the  designing  mind  can 
not  be  found  in  any  of  the  elements,  nor  in  the  resultant  of  all  com- 
bined, it  must  be  found  in  the  presiding  control  of  the  Creator. 

8.  How  may  this  doctrine  he  established  by  the  evidence  af- 
forded by  the  general  history  of  the  luorld  ? 

If  the  constitution  of  human  nature  (soul  and  body),  in  its 
elemental  relations  to  human  society,  proves  a  designing  mind  in 
the  relation  of  creator,  exactly  so  must  the  wisely  contrived 
residts  of  human  association,  in  general  and  in  individual  in- 
stances, prove  the  exercise  of  a  designing  mind  in  the  relation  of 
providential  ruler. 


208  PROVIDENCE. 

Individual  men  and  communities,  it  is  true,  differ  in  their  ac- 
tion, from  the  elements  of  the  external  world,  inasmuch  as  they 
act,  1st,  freely,  self-moved  ;  and,  2d,  from  design.  Yet  so  nar- 
row is  the  sphere  hoth  of  the  foresight  and  the  design  of  every 
individual  agent,  so  great  is  the  multiplicity  of  agents,  and  the 
complications  of  interacting  influences  upon  each  community 
from  within,  from  every  other  community,  and  from  the  powers 
of  external  nature,  that  the  designs  of  either  individuals  or  com- 
munities are  never  carried  beyond  a  short  distance,  when  they  are 
lost  in  the  general  current,  the  result  of  which  lies  equally  beyond 
the  foreknowledge  and  the  control  of  all.  But  the  student  of  his- 
tory, with  the  key  of  revelation,  clearly  discerns  the  traces  of  a 
general  design  running  through  all  the  grand  procedures  of  human 
history,  and  at  points  even  visibly  linking  itself  with  the  actions 
of  individual  agents.  God's  providence,  as  a  whole,  therefore, 
comprehends  and  controls  the  little  providences  of  men. 

9.  State  the  Scriptural  argument  from  the  prophecies,  prom- 
ises, and  threatenings  of  God. 

In  innumerable  instances  has  God  in  the  Scriptures  prophesied 
with  great  particularity  the  certain  occurrence  of  an  event  abso- 
lutely, and  he  has  promised  or  threatened  the  occurrence  of  other 
events  contingently  upon  certain  conditions.  This  would  be  a 
mockery,  if  God  did  not  use  the  means  to  fulfill  his  word. 

It  is  not  reasonable  to  object  that  God  simply  foresaw  the 
event,  and  so  prophesied,  promised,  or  threatened  it,  because  the 
event  is  frequently  promised  or  threatened  contingently,  upon  a 
condition  which  does  not  stand  in  the  relation  of  a  cause  to  that 
event.  God  could  not  foresee  one  event  as  contingent  upon  an- 
other which  sustains  no  causal  relation  to  it.  The  truth  of  the 
promise  or  threatening  in  such  a  case  can  not  depend  upon  the 
natural  connection  between  the  two  events,  but  upon  God's  de- 
termination to  cause  one  to  follow  the  other. 

10.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  the  providence  of  God  extends 
over  the  natural  ivorld. 

Ps.  civ.,  14  ;  cxxxv.,  5-7  ;  cxlvii.,  8-18  ;  cxlviii.,  7,  8  ;  Job 
ix.,  5,  6  ;  xxi.,  9-11 ;  xxxvii.,  6-13  ;  Acts  xiv.,  17. 


PAKTICULAK  PROVIDENCE.  209 

11.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  it  includes  the  brute  creation. 
Ps.  civ.,  21-29  ;  cxlvii.,  9  ;  Matt,  vi.,  26  ;  x.,  29. 

12.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  it  extends  to  the  general  affairs 
of  men. 

1  Chron.  xvi.,  31 ;  Ps.  xlvii.,  7  ;  Ixvi.,  7  ;  Prov.  xxi.,  1  ;  Job 
xii.,  23  ;  Isa.  x.,  12-15  ;  Dan.  ii.,  21;  iv.,  25. 

13.  Shoiu  from  Scripture  that  the  circumstances  of  indi- 
viduals are  controlled  by  God. 

1  Sam.  ii.,  6  ;  Ps.  xviii.,  30;  Prov.  xvi.,  9  ;  Isa.  xlv.,  5;  Luke 
i.,  53  ;  James  iv.,  13-15. 

14.  Prove  that  events  considered  by  us  fortuitous  are  subject 
to  the  control  of  God. 

1st.  A  fortuitous  event  is  one  whose  proximate  causes,  because 
(.'Ither  of  their  complexity  or  their  subtlety,  escape  our  observa- 
tion. Every  such  event,  however,  as  the  felling  of  a  leaf,  is 
linked  with  the  general  system  of  things,  both  by  its  antecedents 
and  its  consequences. 

2d.  Scripture  affirms  the  fact. — Ex.  xxi.,  13  ;  Ps.  Ixxv.,  6,  7 ; 
Job  v.,  6  ;  Prov.  xvi.,  33. 

15.  Prove  that  a  general  necessarily  involves  a  particular 
providence. 

Every  department  of  existence  in  the  universe  is  so  intimately 
related  to  all  the  rest,  that  every  change  taking  effect  in  one 
necessarily  affects  the  others.  All  events,  moreover,  occur  in 
successions  of  causes  and  effects,  each  link  in  turn  being  the  effect 
of  what  proceeds  and  the  cause  of  what  follows.  In  the  present 
order  of  things  it  would  be  impossible  to  secure  certain  general 
ends,  without  necessarily  determining  all  those  particular  events 
upon  which  those  general  ends  depend  ;  and  thus,  as  no  event  is 
isolated,  since  even  the  least  event  springs  from  and  contributes  to 
the  general  system,  every  event  must  be  presided  over  to  that  end. 
The  notion  of  a  general  providence,  a  particular  one  excluded, 
is  as  absurd  as  that  of  a  chain  without  links. 

16.  Prove  that  tlie  providential  government  of  God  extends  to 
the  free  acts  of  men 

14 


210  PROVIDENCE, 

1st.  The  free  actions  of  men  are  potent  causes  influencing  the 
general  system  of  things  precisely  as  all  other  classes  of  causes  in 
the  world,  and  consequently,  on  the  principle  indicated  in  the 
answer  to  the  preceding  question,  they  also  must  be  subject  to 
God,  or  every  form  of  providence  whatever  would  be  impossible 
for  him. 

2d.  It  is  affirmed  in  Scripture. — Ex.  xii.,  36  ;  1  Sam.  xxiv., 
9-15;  Ps.  xxxiii.,  14,  15  ;  Prov.  xvi.,  1;  xix.,  21;  xx.,  24;  xxi., 
1  ;  Jer.  x.,  23  ;  Phil,  ii.,  13. 

17.  Show  from  Scripture  that  God's  providence  is  exercised 
over  the  sinful  acts  of  men. 

2  Sam.  xvi.,  10  ;  xxiv.  1 ;  Ps.  Ixxvi.,  10  ;,  Kom.  xi.,  32;  Acts 
iv.,  27,  28. 

18.  What  general  princiiyles,  as  to  the  nature  of  God's  provi- 
dential government,  is  it  important  to  hear  in  mind  ? 

1st.  The  fact  that  God  does  control  all  the  actionSj_jnternal^ 
and  external,  necessary  and  free,  good  and  bad,  of  all  his  creatures. 
2d.  That  whatever  may  be  the  mode  in  which  God  exercised 
this  providential  control,  or  the  nature  of  the  influence  he  exerts 
upon  any  of  his  creatures,  it  can  not  be  inconsistent  either  (1.) 
with  his  own  infinite  perfections,  or  (2.)  with  that  constitution 
and  those  attributes  with  which  he  has  himself  endowed  the  crea- 
ture wpon  whom  he  acts.  His  influence,  therefore,  must  always 
be  worthy  of  himself,  and  in  each  case  congruous  to  the  nature 
of  the  creature. 

3d.  It  follows  from  the  ascertained  limits  of  human  thought 
that  we  can  never  clearly  undei*stand  the  mode  in  which,  in  the 
ultimate  act,  the  infinite  spirit  of  God  acts  upon  the  finite  spirit 
of  man.  The  interaction  of  God's  agency  in  providence  and 
grace  with  man's  dependent  agency  constitutes  that  limit  of 
thought  which  is  emerging  at  every  step,  which  we  may  define, 
but  neither  avoid  nor  transcend. 

19.  What  is  the  nature  of  God's  agency  in  the  material 
world  ? 

All  that  we  know  upon  this  subject  may  be  defined  as  follows  : 
1st.  The  properties  of  material    elements  are   inherent  in 


DEFINITIONS.  211 

their  subjects,  and  consequently  they  act  efficiently  as  second 
causes. 

2d.  God  has  so  adjusted  these  elements  in  their  proportions 
and  relations  that  they  act  and  interact  according  to  certain  gen- 
eral laws,  which  he  has  established  as  an  order  of  nature. 

3d.  In  his  ordinary  providence  Grod  does  not  change  or  coerce, 
but  rather  preserves  these  properties  in  their  integrity,  and  this 
order  of  nature. 

4th.  God,  however,  both  in  the  original  constitution  of  the  ma- 
terial elements,  in  the  adjustment  of  them  in  their  mutual' rela- 
tions, and  in  his  concurrent  providential  control  of  them  in  action, 
certainly  determines  all  results,  individual  and  general,  regular 
and  exceptional. 

20.  What  is  meant  by  a  "  material  cause,"  and  what  by  a 
^^  law  of  nature"  ? 

The  material  world  consists  simply  of  a  greater  or  less  number 
of  elements,  each  endowed  with  its  own  specific  property  or  capacity 
of  acting,  and  of  being  acted  upon  by  all  other  elements  respectively 
in  a  certain  way.  One  of  these  bodies  alone  produces  no  effect,  and 
therefore  is  no  cause  ;  but  two  or  more  of  them  brought  together 
act  upon  each  other  mutually,  according  to  their  properties  and 
to  their  relative  circumstances.  A  material  cause,  therefore,  is 
to  be  found  in  the  relative  properties  of  two  or  more  bodies,  so 
adjusted  as  to  act  upon  each  other,  and  the  effect  is  the  mutual 
change  in  each  which  results  from  this  interaction,  e.  g.,  we  have 
for  cause  the  mutual  chemical  attraction  of  the  oxygen  of  the  air, 
and  the  hydrogen  and  carbon  of  the  wood  at  a  high  temperature, 
and  for  effect  we  have  the  smoke  and  the  ashes,  or  the  elements 
of  air  and  wood  in  new  combinations  after  combustion. 

But  in  order  that  such  causes  should  act  uniformly,  these  ma- 
terial elements  must  be  adjusted  uniformly  in  their  mutual  rela- 
tions. This  God  has  done  with  infinite  wisdom  with  respect  to 
the  relation  of  these  elements,  "  1st,  as  to  their  properties  ;  2d, 
as  to  their  quantity  ;  3d,  as  to  space ;  4th,  as  to  time." 

A  "  laio  of  nature"  is  nothing  more  than  a  general  or  uniform 
fact  ;  it  is  only  a  general  expression  for  the  way  in  which  ma- 
terial elements  act  in  their  mutual  relations  as  providentially  ad- 
justed.    Instead  of  producing  the  harmonious  results  in  nature, 


212  PROVIDENCE. 

which  are  often  superficially  attributed  to  them,  "  they  are  them- 
selves the  result  of  nicely  balanced  and  skilful!  adjustments." — 
M'Cosh,  Divine  Gov.,  Book  II.,  chap.  i. 

21.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  God's  providential 
agency  in  the  good  acts  of  men  ? 

The  Scrij)turcs  attribute  all  that  is  good  in  man  to  the  free 
gi'ace  of  God,  operating  both  providentially  and  spiritually,  and 
influencing  alike  the  body  and  the  soul,  and  the  outward  relations 
of  the  individual.— Phil,  ii.,  13  ;  iv.,  13;  2  Cor.  xii.,  9,  10;  Eph. 
ii.,  10  ;  Gal.  v.,  22-25. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  while  a  material  cause 
may  be  analysed  into  the  mutual  interaction  of  two  or  more 
bodies,  a  human  soul  acts  spontaneously,  i.  e.,  originates  action. 
The  soul  also,  in  all  its  voluntary  acts,  is  determined  by  its  own 
prevailing  dispositions  and  desires. 

When  all  the  good  actions  of  men,  therefore,  are  attributed 
to  God,  it  is  not  meant,  1st,  that  he  causes  them,  or,  2d,  that  he 
determines  man  to  cause  them,  irrespectively  of  man's  free  will ; 
but  it  is  meant  that  God  so  acts  upon  man  from  within  spirit- 
ually, and  from  without  by  moral  influences,  as  to  induce  the  free 
disposition.  He  works  in  us  first  to  Avill,  and  then  to  do  his  good 
pleasure. 

22.  What  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures  concerning  his  agency 
with  resjject  to  the  sins  of  men  ? 

There  is  involved  in  this  question  the  insoluble  mystery,  1st, 
of  God's  permission  of  moral  evil,  and,  2d,  of  the  nature  of  God's 
action  upon  the  dej)endent  spirits  of  men. 

Turrettin  sets  forth  the  testimony  of  Scripture  upon  this  sub- 
ject thus : — 

1st.  As  to  the  beginning  of  the  sin,  (1.)  God  freely  permits  it. 
But  this  permission  is  neither  moral,  i.  e.,  while  permitting  it 
physically,  he  never  approves  it ;  nor  merely  negative,  i.  e.,  he 
does  not  simply  concur  in  the  result,  but  he  positively  dctermi<^s 
that  bad  men  shall  be  permitted  for  wise  and  holy  ends  to  act 
according  to  their  bad  natures. — Acts  xiv.,  16  ;  Ps.  Ixxxi.,  12. 
(2.)  He  deserts  those  who  sin,  either  by  withdrawing  grace  abused, 
or  by  withholding  additional  grace.    This  desertion  may  be  either 


DOCTRINE   OF   CONCURSUS.  213 

a  partial,  to  prove  man's  heart  (2  Chron.  xxxii.,  31),  or  h  for  cor- 
rection, or  c  penal  (Jer.  vii.,  29  ;  Kom.  i.,  24-26).  (3.)  God  so 
orders  providential  circumstances  that  the  inherent  wickedness  of 
men  takes  the  particular  course  of  action  he  has  determined  to 
permit  (Acts  ii.,  23  ;  iii.,  18).  (4.)  God  delivers  men  to  Satan, 
a  as  a  tempter  (2  Thess.  ii.,  9-11),  h  as  a  torturer  (1  Cor.  v.,  5). 

2d.  As  to  the  progress  of  the  sin,  God  restrains  it  as  to  its 
intensity  and  its  duration,  and  as  to  its  influence  upon  others. 
This  he  effects  both  by  internal  influences  upon  the  heart,  and  by 
the  control  of  external  circumstances. — Ps.  Ixxvi.,  10. 

3d.  As  to  the  end  or  result  of  the  sin,  God  uniformly  over- 
rules it  and  directs  it  for  good. — Gen.  1.,  20 ;  Job  i.,  12  ;  ii., 
6-10  ;  Acts  iii.,  13  ;  iv.,  27,  28. 

23.  What  is  the  old  doctrine  of  concursus,  and  the  distinction 
between  '^ previous"  and  ^^  simultaneous"  concursus  ? 

This  was  an  attempt  to  construct  a  philosophical  explanation 
of  the  truth  upon  this  subject  taught  in  Scripture,  rather  than  a 
simple  statement  of  that  truth,  or  a  legitimate  deduction  from  it. 
It  was  a  product  of  the  schoolmen,  held  by  the  disciples  of 
Thomas  Aquinas,  and  the  orthodox  party  among  the  Eomanists 
generally,  and  by  almost  all  the  early  Protestant  divines. 

Previous  concursus  is  that  act  of  God  wherein,  by  flowing 
into  causes  and  their  principles,  he  excites  his  creatures  to  act, 
and  determines  them  to  perform  one  action  rather  than  another. 

Simultaneous  concursus  is  the  influence  of  God  upon  the 
creature,  continued  and  considered  as  carried  over  into  their  act. 
As  he  determined  them  to  perform  the  act,  so  he  concurs  with 
them  in  the  production  of  the  act. 

These  theologians  distinguished  between  the  action  viewed 
physically  as  an  entity,  and  its  moral  quality.  The  action  was 
from  God  ;  the  moral  quality,  if  evil,  was  from  man.  As  when 
a  man  strikes  an  untuned  harp,  the  sound  is  from  him,  the  dis- 
cord is  from  the  disorder  of  the  instrument.  Concerning  this 
theory  Ave  have  to  say,  that  while  we  fully  believe  that  man  lives 
and  moves  and  has  his  being  in  God,  and  that  God  works  in  man 
to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure  ;  that  he  has  eternally  fore- 
ordained whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  now  providentially  con- 


214  PROVIDENCE. 

trols  all  the  actions  of  all  his  creatures  so  that  his  eternal  pur- 
poses are  fulfilled  ; — yet  this  theory  of  concursus^  1st,  in  the  first 
place  attempts  to  explicate  the  nature  of  this  divine  influence, 
which  is  not  supernaturally  revealed,  and  which  transcends  our 
natural  faculties.  2d.  In  vindicating  the  dependence  of  the  crea- 
ture, it  denies  the  efficiency  of  second  causes,  makes  God  the  only 
real  agent  in  the  universe,  and  logically  leads  to  Pantheism.  3d. 
It  fails  to  make  the  distinction  which  the  Scriptures  do  between 
the  relation  which  God  sustains  to  the  good  actions  of  men,  and 
that  which  he  sustains  to  their  evil  actions. 

It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  there  is  a  constant,  most 
holy,  wise,  and  powerful  influence  exerted  by  the  infinite  spirit  of 
God  upon  the  dependent  souls  of  men ;  we  can  never  logically 
analyze  it. 

24.  Hoio  far  do  the  Scriptures  teach  anything  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  God's  providential  government  ? 

The  mode  in  which  the  divine  agency  is  exerted  is  left  entirely 
unexplained,  but  the  fact  that  God  does  govern  all  his  creatures 
and  all  their  actions  is  expressly  stated  and  everywhere  assumed, 
and  many  of  the  characteristics  of  that  government  are  set  forth. 

It  is  declared — 

1st.  To  be  universal.— Ps.  ciii.,  17-19  ;  Dan.  iv.,  34,  35  ;  Ps. 
xxii.,  28-29. 

2d.  Particular.— Matt,  x.,  29-31. 

3d.  It  embraces  the  thoughts  and  volitions  of  men  and  events 
apparently  contingent. — Prov.  xxi.,  1  ;  xvi.,  9,  33  ;  xix.,  21  ;  2 
Chron.  xvi.,  9. 

4th.  It  is  efficacious. — Lam.  ii.,  17 ;  Ps.  xxxiii.,  11  ;  Job 
xxiii.,  13. 

5th.  It  is  the  execution  of  his  eternal  purpose,  embracing  all 
his  works  from  the  beginning  in  one  entire  system. — Acts  xv.,  18; 
Eph.  i.,  11 ;  Ps.  civ.,  24 ;  Isa.  xxviii.,  29. 

6th.  Its  chief  end  is  his  own  glory,  and  subordinately  thereto, 
the  higliest  good  of  his  redeemed  church. — Rom.  ix.,  17  ;  xi.,  36; 
viii.,  28. 

25.  How  can  the  existence  of  moral  and  physical  evil  be  re- 
conciled with  the  doctrine  of  God's  providential  government  ? 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  215 

The  mystery  of  the  origin  and  permission  of  moral  evil  we 
can  not  solve. 

As  to  physical  evil  we  answer — 

1st.  That  it  is  never  provided  for  as  an  end  in  itself,  hut  al- 
ways a  means  to  an  overhalancing  good. 

2d.  That  in  its  existing  relations  to  moral  evil  as  corrective 
and  punitive,  it  is  justified  alike  hy  reason  and  conscience  as  per- 
fectly worthy  of  a  wise,  righteous,  and  merciful  God. 

26.  Show  that  the  apparently  anomalous  distribution  of  hap- 
piness and  misery  in  this  world  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  doc- 
trine of  providence. 

1st.  Every  moral  agent  in  this  world  has  more  of  good  and 
less  of  evil  than  he  deserves. 

2d.  Happiness  and  misery  are  much  more  equally  distributed 
in  this  world  than  appears  upon  the  surface. 

3d.  As  a  general  rule,  virtue  is  rewarded  and  vice  punished 
even  here. 

4th.  The  present  dispensation  is  a  season  of  education,  pre- 
paration, and  trial,  and  not  one  of  rewards  and  punishments. — 
See  Ps.  Ixxiii. 


^ 


\ii)^ 


^ 


CHAPTER     XIV. 

THE     ORIGINAL     STATE     OF     MAN. 

We  must  preface  this  inquiry  with  an  attempt  to  answer  cer- 
tain psycological  questions  concerning  the  constitution  of  human 
nature,  which  are  necessary  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  clear  un- 
derstanding of  the  Scriptural  doctrines  as  to  the  relation  of  man 
to  God's  moral  government,  his  fall,  his  estate  in  sin,  and  his  re- 
generation and  sanctification  by  the  Holy  Sjjirit. 

1.  What  is  the  general  jprinciple  which  it  is  always  necessary 
to  hear  in  mind  while  treating  of  the  various  faculties  of  the 
human  soul  ? 

The  soul  of  man  is  one  single  indivisible  agent,  not  an  organ- 
ized whole  consisting  of  several  parts  ;  and,  therefore,  what  we 
call  its  several  faculties  are  rather  the  capacity  of  the  one  agent, 
for  discharging  successively  or  concurrently  the  several  functions 
involved,  and  are  never  to  be  conceived  of  as  separately  existing 
parts  or  organs.  These  several  functions  exercised  by  the  one 
soul  are  so  various  and  complex,  that  a  minute  analysis  is  abso- 
lutely necessary,  in  order  to  lay  open  to  us  a  definite  view  of  their 
nature.  Yet  we  must  carefully  remember  that  a  large  part  of 
the  errors  into  which  philosophers  have  fallen  in  their  interpreta- 
tion of  man's  moral  constitution,  has  resulted  from  the  abuse  of 
this  very  process  of  analysis.  This  is  especially  true  with  respect 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  voluntary  acts  of  the  human  soul. 
In  prosecution  of  his  analysis  the  philosopher  comes  to  recognize 
separately  the  differences  and  the  likenesses  of  these  various  func- 
tions of  the  soul,  and  too  frequently  forgets  that  these  functions 
themselves  are,  in  fact,  never  exercised  in  that  isolated  manner,  but 
concurrently  by  the  one  soul,  as  an  indivisible  agent,  and  that  thus 
they  always  qualify  one  another.     Thus,  it  is  not  true,  in  fact, 


FACULTIES    OF    THE    SOUL.  217 

that  tlie  understanding  reasons,  and  the  heart  feels,  and  the  con- 
science approves  or  condemns,  and  the  will  decides,  as  different 
members  of  the  body  work  together,  or  as  the  different  persons 
constituting  a  council  deliberate  and  decide  in  mutual  parts  ;  but 
it  is  true  that  the  one  indivisible,  rational,  feeling,  moral,  self- 
determining  soul  reasons,  feels,  approves,  or  condemns  and  decides. 
The  self-determining  power  of  the  loill  as  an  abstract  faculty 
is  absurd  as  a  doctrine,  and  would  be  disastrous  as  an  experience, 
but  the  self-determining  power  of  the  human  soul  as  a  concrete, 
rational,  feeling  agent,  is  a  fact  of  universal  consciousness,  and 
a  fundamental  doctrine  of  moral  philosophy  and  of  Christian 
theology. 

2.  Hoio  may  the  leading  faculties  of  the  human  soul  he  clas- 
sified ? 

1st.  The  intellectual.  This  class  includes  all  those  faculties 
in  different  ways  concerned  in  the  general  function  of  knowing  ; 
as  the  reason,  the  imagination,  the  bodily  senses,  and  the  moral 
sense  (when  considered  as  a  mere  source  of  knowledge  to  the  un- 
derstanding.) 

2d.  The  emotional.  This  class  includes  all  those  feelings 
which  attend,  in  any  manner,  the  exercise  of  the  other  faculties. 

3d.  The  will. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  functions  of  the  conscience  in- 
volve faculties  belonging  to  both  the  iirst  and  second  classes,  (see 
below,  question  5.) 

It  is  often  asked  which  of  our  faculties  is  the  seat  of  our 
moral  nature  ?  Now  while  there  is  a  sense  in  which  all  moral 
questions  concern  the  relation  of  the  states  or  acts  of  the  will  to 
the  law  of  God  revealed  in  the  conscience,  and  therefore  in  which 
the  will  and  the  conscience  are  preeminently  the  foundation  of 
man's  moral  nature,  it  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  every  one  of 
the  faculties  of  the  human  soul,  as  above  classified,  is  exer- 
cised in  relation  to  all  moral  distinctions,  e.  g.,  the  intellec- 
tual in  the  perception  and  judgment ;  the  emotional  in  pleas- 
ant feeling  or  the  reverse  ;  the  will,  in  choosing  or  refusing, 
and  in  acting.  Every  state  or  act  of  any  one  of  the  facul- 
ties of  the  human  soul,  therefore,  which  involves  the  judging, 
choosing,  refusing,  desiring,  upon  a  purely  moral  question,  or  the 


218  THE   ORIGINAL   STATE   OF   MAN. 

feeling  corresponding  thereto,  is  a  moral  state  or  act,  and  all  the 
faculties,  viewed  in  their  relations  to  the  distinction  between  good 
and  evil,  are  moral  faculties. 

3.   What  is  the  Will  ? 

The  tenn  will  is  often  used  to  express  the  mere  faculty  of 
volition,  whereby  the  soul  chooses,  or  refuses,  or  determines  to 
act,  and  the  exercise  of  that  faculty.  It  is  also  used  in  a  wider 
sense,  and  in  this  sense  I  use  it  here,  to  include  the  faculty  of  vo- 
lition, together  with  all  of  the  spontaneous  states  of  the  soul 
(designated  by  Sir  William  Hamilton,  "  Lectures  on  Meta- 
physics," Lect.  XL,  the  faculties  of  conation,  the  excitive,  striv- 
ing faculties,  jDOSsessing,  as  their  common  characteristic,  "  a  ten- 
dency toAvard  the  realization  of  their  end")  the  dispositions,  affec- 
tions, desires,  which  determine  a  man  in  the  exercise  of  his  free 
power  of  volition.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  these 
two  senses  of  the  word  will  are  essentially  distinct.  The  will,  as 
including  all  the  faculties  of  conation  (the  dispositions  and  desires), 
is  to  be  essentially  distinguished  from  the  single  faculty  of  soul 
exercised  in  the  resulting  volition,  i.  e.,  the  choosing  or  the  acting 
according  to  its  prevailing  desire. 

There  is  included  in  the  doctrine  of  the  will,  1st,  that  in  the 
exercise  of  the  faculty  of  volition,  or  self-decision,  the  soul  truly 
originates  action,  i.  e.,  acts  as  an  original  cause  of  its  own  acts, 
therein  differing  totally  from  all  material  causes,  which  act  only 
as  they  are  acted  upon.  This  is  the  transcendental  element  of 
the  human  will,  generally  marked  by  the  term  spontaneity,  which 
has  rendered  the  whole  subject  so  obscure.  The  truth  must  be 
recognized  that  we  have  here  reached  one  of  the  impassable  limits 
of  human  thought.  Our  minds  are  so  constituted  that  we  can 
understand  only  a  chain  of  operations,  each  link  of  which  is  al- 
ternately effect  and  cause.  The  action  of  an  absolute  cause,  that 
is,  of  one  really  originating  action,  is  a  mystery  to  our  understand- 
ings, though  it  be  daily  part  of  our  personal  experience.  Any 
attempt  to  analyse  this  ultimate  fact  only  destroys  it,  and  con- 
fuses the  testimony  of  consciousness.  This  conclusion,  stated  in 
different  language,  is  arrived  at  by  different  paths  by  Sir  William 
Hamilton. — See  Discussions,  pp.  575-590  ;  M'Cosh,  see  "  Divine 


THE   FACULTIES   OF   THE   SOUL.  219 

Government,"  pp.  273-294  ;  and  Isaac  TayL)r,  see  "  World  of 
Mind,"  pp.  83-93,  and  others. 

2d.  That  this  executive  act  of  volition  is  always  according  to 
the  present  prevailing  desires  or  affections  of  the  soul,  in  respect 
to  the  object  of  action,  in  the  view  which  the  understanding  takes 
of  the  whole  case  at  the  time.  A  man  always  chooses  as,  upon 
the  whole,  he  desires  to  choose.  The  soul  often  decides  in  oppo- 
sition to  many  of  its  most  intense  desires.  Yet  it  always  decides 
in  conformity  with  that  desire  which  is,  upon  the  wliole,  the 
strongest.  If  the  question  be — Whence  orginates  the  soul's  ac- 
tion "?  the  answer  must  refer  to  the  soul's  inherent  power  of  act- 
ing as  an  original  cause.  If  the  question  be — Why  does  the  soul 
act  thus  rather  than  otherwise  ?  the  answer  must  refer  to  the  in- 
herent state  of  the  soul  itself  in  relation  to  the  object  of  choice. 

3d.  That  these  prevalent  dispositions  and  desires,  although 
they  are  temporarily  excited  to  action  by  the  view  which  the 
understanding  transmits  of  external  objects,  nevertheless  have 
their  only  efficient  cause  and  reason  in  the  principles,  or  perma- 
nent nature  of  the  will  itself.  These  affections  and  desires  are 
spontaneous,  and  are  determined  in  their  character  by  the  will 
which  exercises  them.  The  understanding  can  give  no  further 
account  of  them. 

4.  What  is  the  distinction  between  a  temporakily  preva- 
lent AFFECTION  OT  DESIRE,  and  a  PERMANENT  PRINCIPLE  of  the 
Will  ? 

The  "  affection"  or  "  desire"  is  a  temporary  spontaneous  state 
of  the  will  with  respect  to  a  certain  choice  or  volition,  for  the 
time  being,  and  in  the  view  which  the  mind  takes  of  all  the  cir- 
cumstances and  reasons  of  the  case.  The  "  principle"  or  the 
"  disposition,"  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  permanent  habit,  inherent 
in  the  will,  of  exercising  "  affections"  or  "  desires"  of  some  par- 
ticular kind. 

A  man  chooses  or  refuses  in  every  particular  case,  according  to 
his  prevalent  desire  in  that  case.  But  a  man  prevailingly  desires, 
and  so  chooses  and  refuses  in  all  similar  cases,  according  to  hia 
permanent  habitual  principles  and  disposition.  These  permanent 
habitual  principles  or  dispositions  constitute  the  man's  permanent 
character  ;  as  a  moral  agent,  he  is  always  as  they  are  :  by  Imow- 


220  THE   ORIGINAL    STATE   OF  MAN. 

ing  them  we  know  him,  and  can  to  a  good  degree  predict  his  free 
action  under  given  circmnstances.  These  permanent  princijjlcs 
are  of  two  classes  with  respect  to  origin  :  1st,  innate  ;  2d,  ac- 
quired by  repeated  actions  of  the  same  kind.  This  distinction, 
however,  makes  no  difference  with  respect  to  character  or  moral 
responsibility.  A  man  whose  spontaneous  dispositions  are  malig- 
nant, is  a  bad  man,  whether  those  dispositions  be  innate  or  ac- 
quired, and  in  either  case  he  is  equally  responsible. 

5.  What  is  the  conscience  ? 

Conscience,  as  a  faculty,  includes  a  moral  sense,  or  the  power 
of  discerning  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  which, 
combining  with  the  understanding,  or  faculty  of  comparing  and 
judging,  judges  of  the  right  or  wrong  of  our  own  moral  disposi- 
tions and  voluntary  actions,  and  of  the  dispositions  and  volun- 
tary actions  of  other  free  agents.  This  faculty  judges  according 
to  a  divine  law  of  right  and  wrong,  included  within  itself  (it  is  a 
law  to  itself,  the  original  law  written  upon  the  heart,  Rom.  ii., 
14),  and  it  is  accompanied  with  vivid  emotions,  pleasurable  in 
view  of  that  which  is  right,  and  painful  in  view  of  that  which  is 
wrong,  especially  when  our  conscience  is  engaged  in  reviewing  the 
states,  or  the  actions  of  our  own  wills.  This  faculty  in  its  own 
province  is  sovereign,  and  can  have  no  other  superior  than  the 
revealed  word  of  God. — See  M'Cosh,  "Divine  Government,"  Book 
III.,  chap,  i.,  sec.  4. 

6.  What  do  we  mean  when  we  say  that  man  is  a  free  agent  1 

1st.  That,  being  a  spirit,  he  originates  action.  Matter  acts 
only  as  it  is  acted  upon.  A  man  acts  from  the  spring  of  his  own 
active  power. 

2d.  That,  although  a  man  may  be  forced  by  fear  to  will  and 
to  do  many  things  which  he  would  neither  will  nor  do  if  it  were 
not  for  the  fear,  yet  he  never  can  be  made  to  will  what  he  does 
not  himself  desire  to  will,  in  full  view  of  all  the  circumstances  of 
the  case. 

3d.  That  he  is  furnished  with  a  reason  to  distinguish  between 
the  true  and  the  false,  and  with  a  conscience,  the  organ  of  an 
innate  moral  law,  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong,  in  order 


'  FACULTIES   OF   THE   SOUL.  221 

that  his  desires  may  he  both  rational  and  righteous.  And  yet  his 
desires  are  not  necessarily  either  rational  or  righteous,  but  are 
formed  under  the  light  of  reason  and  conscience,  either  conform- 
able or  contrary  to  them,  according  to  the  permanent  habitual 
dispositions  of  the  man,  i.  e.,  according  to  his  own  character. 

7.  W7iat  are  the  essential  conditions  of  moral  responsibility  ? 

To  be  morally  responsible  a  man  must  be  a  free,  rational, 
mora)  agent,  (see  answer  to  preceding  question.)  1st.  He  must 
be  in  present  possession  of  his  reason  to  distinguish  truth  from 
falsehood.  2d.  He  must  also  have  in  exercise  a  moral  sense  to 
distinguish  right  from  wrong.  3d.  His  will,  in  its  volitions  or 
executive  acts,  must  be  self-decided,  i.  e.,  determined  by  its  own 
spontaneous  affections  and  desires.  If  any  of  these  are  wanting, 
the  man  is  insane,  and  neither  free  nor  responsible. 

8.  Is  the  conscience  indestructible  and  infallible  ? 

The  conscience,  the  organ  of  God's  law  in  the  soul,  may  vir- 
tually, t.  e.,  as  to  its  effects  and  phenomena,  be  both  rendered 
latent  and  perverted  for  a  time,  and  in  this  phenomenal  sense, 
therefore,  it  is  neither  indestructible  nor  infallible.  But  if  the 
moral  sense  be  regarded  simply  in  itself  it  is  infallible,  and  if  the 
total  history  of  even  the  worst  man  is  taken  into  the  account, 
conscience  is  truly  indestructible. 

1st.  As  to  its  indestructibility.  Conscience,  like  every  other 
faculty  of  the  soul,  is  undeveloped  in  the  infant,  and  very  imper- 
fectly developed  in  the  savage ;  and,  moreover,  after  a  long  habit 
of  inattention  to  its  voice  and  violation  of  its  law,  the  individual 
sinner  is  often  judicially  given  up  to  carnal  indiflPerence;  his  con- 
science for  a  time  lying  latent.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  it  is  never 
destroyed.  (1.)  From  the  fact  that  it  is  often  aroused  to  the  most 
fearful  energy  in  the  hearts  of  long-hardened  reprobates  in  the 
agonies  of  remorse.  (2.)  From  the  fact  that  this  remorse  or  ac- 
cusing conscience  constitutes  the  essential  torment  of  lost  souls 
and  devils.  This  is  the  worm  that  never  dieth.  Otlierwise  their 
punishment  would  lose  its  moral  character. 

2d.  As  to  its  infallibility.  Conscience,  in  the  act  of  judging 
of  moral  states  or  actions,  involves  the  concurrent  action  of  the 
understanding  and  the  moral  sense.     This  understanding  is  al- 


222  THE   ORIGINAL    STATE   OF   MAN. 

ways  fallible,  especially  when  it  is  prejudiced  in  its  action  by  de- 
praved aifections  and  desires.  Thus,  in  fact,  conscience  constantly 
delivers  false  decisions  from  a  misjudgement  of  the  facts  and  rela- 
tions of  the  case  ;  it  may  be  through  a  selfish,  or  sensual,  or  a 
malignant  bias.  Hence  we  have  virtually  a  deceiving  as  well  as 
a  latent  conscience.  Notwithstanding  this,  however,  the  normal 
sense  of  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  as  an  eternal 
law  to  itself,  lies  indestructible  even  in  the  most  depraved  breasts, 
as  it  can  not  be  destroyed,  so  it  can  not  be  changed;  when  aroused 
to  action,  and  when  not  deceived  as  to  the  true  state  of  the  case, 
its  language  is  eternally  the  same.— See  McCosh,  "  Divine  Gov- 
ernment," Book  III.,  Chapter  II.,  Section  6,  and  Dr.  A.  Alex- 
ander, "  Moral  Science,"  Chapters  IV.  and  V. 

9.    What  is  the  essential  nature  of  virtue  ? 

"  Virtue  is  a  peculiar  quality  of"  certain  states  of  the  will,  i.  e., 
either  permanent  dispositions  or  temporary  affections  of  the  will, 
and  "of  certain  voluntary  actions  of  a  moral  agent,  which  quality 
is  perceived  by  the  moral  faculty  with  which  every  man  is  endowed, 
and  the  perception  of  which  is  accompanied  by  an  emotion  which 
is  distinct  from  all  other  emotions,  and  is  called  moral." — Dr. 
Alexander,  Moral  Science.,  Chap.  XXVI. 

The  csseuce  of  virtue  is,  that  it  obliges  the  will.  If  a  thing 
is  morally  right  it  ought  to  be  done.  The  essence  of  moral  evil 
is,  that  it  intrinsically  deserves  disapprobation,  and  the  agent 
punishment. 

This  point  is  of  great  importance,  because  the  truth  here  is 
often  perverted  by  a  false  philosophy,  and  because  this  view  of 
moral  good  is  the  only  one  consistent  with  the  Scriptural  doc- 
trine of  sins,  rewards  and  punishments,  and,  above  all,  of  Christ's 
atonement. 

The  idea  of  virtue  is  a  simple  and  ultimate  intuition  ;  at- 
tempted analysis  destroys  it.  Right  is  right  because  it  is.  It  is 
its  own  highest  reason.  It  has  its  norm  in  the  immutable  nature 
of  God. 

10.  What  constitutes  a  virtuous  and  what  a  vicious  char- 
acter ? 

Virtue,  as  defined  in  the  answer  to  the  last  question,  attaches 


FACULTIES    OF    THE    SOUL.  223 

only  to  the  will  of  man  (including  all  the  conative  faculties),  1st,  to 
its  permanent  disposition;  2d,  to  its  temporary  affections;  and,  3d, 
to  its  volitions.  Some  of  these  states  and  actions  of  the  will  are 
not  moral,  i.  c,  they  are  neither  approved  nor  condemned  by  the 
conscience  as  virtuous  or  vicious.  But  virtue  or  vice  belong  only 
to  states  of  the  will,  and  to  voluntary  acts.  A  virtuous  char- 
acter, therefore,  is  one  in  which  the  permanent  dispositions,  the 
temporary  affections  and  desires,  and  the  volitions  of  the  will,  are 
conformable  to  the  divine  laio. 

A  vicious  character,  on  the  other  hand,  is  one  in  which  these 
states  and  acts  of  the  will  are  not  conformable  to  the  divine  law. 

The  acts  of  volition  are  virtuous  or  vicious  as  the  affections  or 
desires  by  which  they  are  determined  are  the  one  or  the  other. 
The  affections  and  desires  are  as  the  permanent  dispositions  or 
the  character.  This  last  is  the  nature  of  the  will  itself,  and  its 
character  is  an  ultimate  unrcsolvable  fact.  Whether  that  cha- 
racter be  innate,  ,or  acquired  by  habit,  the  fact  of  its  moral 
quality  as  virtuous  or  vicious  remains  the  same,  and  the  consequent 
moral  accountabilitv  of  the  agent  for  his  character  is  unchang-ed. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  mere  possession  of  a  con- 
science which  approves  the  right  and  condemns  the  wrong,  and 
which  is  accompanied  with  more  or  less  lively  emotion,  painful 
or  pleasureable  as  it  condemns  or  approves,  does  not  make  a 
character  virtuous,  or  else  the  devils  and  lost  souls  would  be  emi- 
nently virtuous.  But  the  virtuous  man  is  he  whose  heart  and 
actions,  in  biblical  language,  or  whose  dispositions,  affections, 
and  volitions,  in  philosophical  language,  are  conformed  to  the 
law  of  God. 

With  this  preface  we  come  now  to  consider  directly  the 

ORIGINAL    STATE    OF    MAN. 

11.  Holo  do  our  standards  answer  the  question,  How  did 
God  create  man  '^ 

Con.  Faith,  Chap.  IV.,  sec.  2.  Larger  Cat.,  Q.  17.  Shorter 
Cat.,  Q.  10. 

12.  Do  the  Scriptures  certainly  sanction  the  distinction  we 
make  hctween  the  material  and  spiritual  elements  of  man's: 
nature  1 


224  THE   ORIGINAL   STATE   OF    MAN. 

Certainly.  1st.  In  their  account  of  man's  creation.  Grod 
formed  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  then  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  thus  he  became  a  living 
soul,  Gen.  ii.,  7.  This  indicated  his  special  relation  to  our  souls 
as  the  Father  of  our  spirits,  Heb.,  xii.,  9.  2d.  In  their  account 
of  the  immediate  result  of  the  dissolution  of  the  personal  union 
of  body  and  soul  in  death,  Eccle.  xii.,  7.  3d.  Both  the  words 
■rn'&vna  and  i^vxrj,  spirit  and  soul,  are  constantly  used  in  the  New 
Testament  to  signify  the  rational  and  immortal  part  of  man, 
Luke  i.,  47,  and  viii.,  55  ;  Matt,  x.,  28  ;  Heb.  vi.,  19.  In  two 
passages  they  are  used  together  by  Paul  to  embrace  exhaustively, 
in  the  popular  philosophical  language  of  the  day,  the  whole  man. 
"  Your  whole  body,  soul  and  spirit,"  1  Thess.  v.,  23  ;  Heb.  iv., 
12,  4th.  In  their  assertion  that  while  the  body  waits  in  the 
grave,  the  spirit,  at  death,  goes  immediatchj  to  God,  2  Cor.  v., 
1-8,  and  Phil,  i.,  23,  24. 

13.  In  ivliat  sense  was  man  created  in  the  image  of  God  ? 
Ist.  In  respect  to  the  spirituality  of  his  nature,  man,  like 

God,  is  a  rational,  moral  and  free  agent. 

2d.  In  respect  to  the  moral  integrity  and  holiness  of  his  nature, 
Eph.  iv.,  24  ;  Col.  iii.,  10. 

3d.  In  respect  to  the  dignity  and  authority  delegated  to  his 
person,  as  the  head  of  this  department  of  creation.  Gen.  i.,  28, 
and  ii.,  19,  20,  and  the  8th  Ps. 

14.  Wherein  did  man's  original  righteousness  consist  ? 

In  the  perfect  conformity  of  all  the  moral  dispositions  and 
aflfections  of  man's  will  to  the  law  of  God,  of  which  law  his  con- 
science was  the  organ. 

As  a  consequence  of  this  there  was  no  schism  in  man's  nature. 
The  will,  moving  freely  in  conformity  to  the  lights  of  reason  and 
conscience,  held  in  harmonious  subjection  all  the  lower  principles 
Doth  of  body  and  soul.  In  perfect  equilibrium  a  perfect  soul 
dwelt  in  a  perfect  body. 

15.  In  ivhat  sense  is  original  righteousness  said  to  he  natural  ? 

It  was  the  moral  perfection  of  man's  nature  as  it  came  origi- 
nally from  the  hands  of  tlie  Creator.  It  is  natural  in  the  sense 
.that  it  belonged  to  man's  nature  at  the  first,  and  that  it  is  essen- 


CREATED    HOLY.  225 

tial  to  his  nature  to  render  it  perfect  as  to  quality,  but  it  is  not 
natural  in  the  sense  of  being  necessary  to  constitute  him  a  real 
man,  or  responsible  as  a  moral  agent.  Man  is  as  much  responsible 
since  his  fall  as  ever  before. 

16L  Prove  that  man  loas  created  holy. 

It  belongs  to  the  essence  of  man's  nature  that  he  is  a  moral 
responsible  agent. 

But,  1st.  As  a  moral  creature  man  was  created  in  the  image 
of  God,  Gen.  i.,  27. 

2d.  God  pronounced  all  his  works,  man  included,  to  be  "  very 
good,"  Gen.  i.,  31.  The  goodness  of  a  mechanical  provision  is 
essentially  its  fitness  to  attain  its  end.  The  "  goodness"  of  a 
moral  agent  can  be  nothing  other  than  his  conformity  of  will  to 
the  moral  law.  Moral  indifferency  in  a  moral  agent  is  itself  of 
the  nature  of  sin. 

3d.  This  truth  is  asserted,  Eccle.  vii.,  29. 

4tli.  In  regeneration,  man  is  renewed  in  the  image  of  God  ; 
in  creation,  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God  ;  the  image,  in 
both  cases,  must  be  the  same,  and  includes  holiness. — Eph.  iv.,  24. 

17.  What  is  the  Pelagian  doctrine  with  regard  to  the  original 
state  of  man  ? 

The  Pelagians  hold,  1st,  that  a  man  can  rightly  be  held  re- 
sponsible only  for  his  unbiassed  volitions  ;  and,  2d,  consequently 
moral  character  as  antecedent  to  moral  action  is  an  absurdity, 
since  only  that  disposition  is  moral  which  has  been  formed  as  a  habit 
by  means  of  preceding  unbiassed  action  of  the  free  will,  i.  e.,  man 
must  choose  his  own  character,  or  he  can  not  be  responsible  for  it. 

They  hold,  therefore,  that  man's  wiU  at  his  creation  was  not 
only  free,  but,  moreover,  in  a  state  of  moral  equilibrium,  equally 
disposed  to  virtue  or  vice. 

18.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  original  state  of  man  ? 
They  agree  that  man  was  created  holy  ;  yet  maintain  that 

original  righteousnesss  did  not  pertain  to  man's  nature  as  such, 
but  was  a  supernatural  grace  added  to  it.  They  hold  that  the 
various  wayward  affections  and  desires  which  war  against  the  law 
of  conscience  are  natural  to  man,  and  in  themselves  not  of  the 
nature  of  sin,  but  tending  necessarily  to  becoming  inordinate,  and 

15 


226  THE   ORIGINAL   STATE   OF   MAN. 

therefore  sinful,  whenever  the  supernatural  endowment  of  original 
righteousness  is  withdrawn,  for  it  is  the  office  of  that  righteous- 
ness to  preside  over  and  hold  them  in  order. — See  Catechismus 
Romanus,  Part  I.,  Chap.  II.,  question  18,  and  Part  II.,  Chap. 
II.,  question  32,  and  Part  IV.,  Chap.  XII.,  question  3. 

19.  How  may  it  he  shown  that  a  holy  character  may  he 
formed  in  a  creature  at  his  creation,  hefore  he  can  have  per- 
formed any  holy  action  ? 

Pehigians  hold,  1st.  That  it  is  an  essential  condition  of  moral 
responsibility,  that  the  will  must  be  left  to  act  unbiassed  by 
any  preceding  dispositions  and  desires.  2d.  That  the  only  dis- 
positions or  character  which  are  consistent  with  free  agency  are 
those  gradually  formed  as  habits  in  consequence  of  repeated 
moral  action.  Therefore,  a  created  moral  character,  holy  or  sin- 
ful, they  hold  to  be  an  absurdity,  for  if  it  be  created  or  innate  it 
can  not  be  moral. 

To  this  we  answer^ — • 

1st.  It  is  contradicted  by  what  the  Scriptures  plainly  teach 
us  concerning  Adam  as  created,  (see  question  16),  concerning  in- 
fants as  born  children  of  wrath,  etc.,  (see  chapter  on  Original  Sin), 
and  concerning  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  (see  chapter  on 
Regeneration.) 

2d.  It  is  absurd,  because  the  very  essence  of  virtue  is,  that  it 
obliges  the  will.  Moral  indifferency  of  disposition  in  presence 
of  any  moral  obligation  is  an  impossibility,  because  it  is  itself  sin. 

3d.  It  is  true  that  all  character,  in  order  to  be  moral,  must  be 
voluntary,  i.  e.,  it  must  be  the  character  of  the  will  itself,  as  a 
good  or  a  bad  vrill,  (or,  in  Scripture  language,  a  good  or  a  bad 
heart,)  and  therefore  it  is  free  and  spontaneous  ;  but  it  is  not  true 
that  sucli  a  character  must  be  formed  by  a  previous  unbiassed 
choice  of  the  will  itself.  Every  man  feels  that  he  is  morally  re- 
sponsible for  the  moral  state  of  his  own  heart,  no  matter  how 
that  state  originated,  simply  because  it  is  the  state  of  his  own 
heart.  If  a  man  hates  virtue  and  loves  vice  he  is  a  bad  man,  no 
matter  how  he  came  to  possess  such  aftections.  "  The  essence  of 
the  virtue  and  vice  of  dispositions  of  the  heart  and  acts  of  the 
will  lies  not  in  their  cause,  but  tlieh  nature." — Pres.  Edwards  on 
Will,  Part  IV.,  Section  1. 


CREATED    HOLY.  227 

4th.  It  is  also  set  forth  by  the  same  great  writer  as  the  uni- 
versal judgment  of  men,  that  the  goodness  or  badness  of  an  act 
depends  upon  the  goodness  or  badness  of  the  disposition  or  affec- 
tion which  prompted  it.  It  is  the  moral  state  of  the  will  (or  heart, 
see  Matt,  vii.,  17-20  and  xii.,  33,)  which  makes  the  act  of  the 
will  right  or  wrong,  and  not  the  act  which  makes  the  state  wrong. 
A  man's  motives  may  be  right,  and  yet  his  choice  may  be  wrong 
through  his  mistake  of  its  nature,  because  of  ignorance  or  in- 
sanity ;  yet  if  all  the  prevalent  dispositions  and  desires  of  the 
heart  in  any  given  case  be  right,  the  volition  must  be  morally 
right,  if  wrong,  the  volition  must  be  morally  wrong  ;  if  indiffer- 
ent, or  neither  right  or  wrong,  the  volition  must  be  morally  in- 
different also.  Hence  appears  the  absurdity  of  their  position. 
If  Adam  had  been  created,  as  they  feign,  with  a  will  equally  dis- 
posed either  to  good  or  evil,  his  first  act  could  have  had  no  moral 
character  whatever.  And  yet  Pelagians  assume  that  Adam's 
first  act,  which  had  no  moral  character  itself,  determined  the 
moral  character  of  the  man  himself,  and  of  all  his  acts  and  des- 
tinies for  all  future  time.  This,  if  true,  would  have  been  unjust 
on  God's  part,  since  it  involves  the  infliction  of  the  most  awful 
punishment  upon  an  act  in  itself  neither  good  nor  bad.  As  a 
theory  it  is  absurd,  since  it  evolves  all  morality  out  of  that  which 
is  morally  indifferent. 

5th.  This  wliole  theory  is  built  upon  certain  d  j^riori  notions, 
and  is  contrary  to  universal  experience.  If  Adam  was  created  with- 
out positive  moral  character,  and  if  infants  are  so  born,  then  the 
conditions  of  free  agency  in  these  supposed  cases  must  be  different 
from  the  conditions  of  free  agency  in  the  case  of  every  adult  man  or 
woman,  from  whose  consciousness  alone  we  can  gather  the  facts 
from  which  to  deduce  any  certain  knowledge  on  the  subject.  Every 
man  who  ever  thought  or  wrote  upon  this  subject,  was  conscious 
of  freedom  only  under  the  conditions  of  an  already  formed  moral 
character.  Even  if  the  Pelagian  view  were  true,  we  never  could 
be  assured  of  it,  since  we  never  have  consciously  experienced  such 
a  condition  of  indifferency.  It  is  nothing  more  than  an  hypothe- 
sis, contrived  to  solve  a  difficulty  ;  a  difficulty  resulting  from  the 
limits  of  our  finite  powers  of  thought. — See  Sir  William  Hamil- 
ton's "  Discussions,"  p.  587,  etc. 


CHAPTER    XV. 

COVENANT     or     WORKS. 

1.  In  loliat  different  senses  is  the  term  covenant  used  in 
Scripture  ? 

1st.  For  a  natural  ordinance,  Jer,  xxxiii.,  20. 

2d.  For  an  unconditional  promise,  Gen.  ix.,  11,  12. 

3d.  For  a  conditional  promise,  Is.  i.,  19,  20. 

4th.  A  dispensation  or  mode  of  administration,  Heb.  viii.,  6-9. 

For  the  usage  with  respect  to  the  Greek  term  diadrjur]^  usually 
translated  in  our  version  testament  and  covenant.- — See  Chapter 
XIX.,  on  "  Covenant  of  Grace,"  question  1. 

In  the  theological  phrases  "  covenant  of  works,"  and  "  cove- 
nant of  grace,"  this  term  is  used  in  the  third  sense  of  a  promise 
suspended  on  conditions. 

2.  What  are  the  several  elements  essential  to  a  covenant  ? 

1st.  Contracting  parties.  2d.  Conditions.  These  conditions 
in  a  covenant  between  equals  are  mutually  imposed  and  mutu- 
ally binding,  but  in  a  sovereign  constitution,  imposed  by  the 
Creator  upon  the  creature,  these  "  conditions"  are  better  expressed 
as  (1.)  promises  on  the  part  of  the  Creator  suspended  upon  (2.) 
conditions  to  be  fulfilled  by  the  creature.  And  (3.)  an  alterna- 
tive penalty  to  be  inflicted  in  case  the  condition  fails. 

3.  SJiOiu  that  the  constitution  under  which  Adam  ivas  placed 
hy  God  at  his  creation  may  he  rightly  called  a  covenant. 

The  inspired  record  of  God's  transactions  with  Adam  presents 
definitely  all  the  essential  elements  of  a  covenant  as  coexisting  in 
that  constitution. 

1st.  The  "  contracting  parties,"  (1.)  God,  the  moral  Governor, 


ITS   PARTIES.  229 

by  necessity  of  nature  and  relation  demanding  perfect  conformity 
to  moral  law.  (2.)  Adam,  the  free  moral  agent,  by  necessity  of 
nature  and  relation  under  the  inalienable  obligation  of  moral  law. 

2d.  The  "  promises,"  life  and  favor,  Matt,  xix.,  16,  17  ;  Gal. 
iii.,  12. 

3d.  The  "conditions"  upon  which  the  promises  were  sus- 
pended, perfect  obedience,  in  this  instance  subjected  to  a  special 
test,  that  of  abstaining  from  the  fruit  of  the  "tree  of  knowledge." 

4th.  The  "  alternative  penalty."  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest 
thereof  thou  slialt  surely  die,"  Gen.  ii.,  16,  17. 

This  constitution  is  called  a  covenant,  Hosea,  vi.,  7. 

4.  Hoio  is  it  defined  in  our  standm^ds  ? 

Con.  Faith,  Chap.  IV.,  Sec.  2  ;  Chap.  VII.,  Sec.  1  and  2  ; 
Chap.  XIX.,  Sec.  1 ;  L.  Cat.,  Q.  20  ;  S.  Cat.,  Q.  12. 

5.  Why  is  it  called  the  Covenant  of  Works  ? 

From  the  nature  of  its  "  condition,"  perfect  obedience,  and  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  covenant  of  gr8,ce,  which  secures  the  sal- 
vation of  God's  people  independently  of  their  works.  It  is  also, 
though  less  frequently,  called  the  covenant  of  life,  because  of  its 
design,  and  of  the  promise  which  vv-as  attached  to  it. 

6.  Who  were  the  parties  to  this  covenant,  and  how  may  it 
he  proved  that  Adam  therein  represented  all  his  natural  de- 
scendants ? 

The  "  parties"  were  God  and  Adam,  and  in  liim  represen- 
tively  all  his  natural  posterity.  That  he  did  thus  represent  his 
descendants  is  evident.  1st.  From  the  parallel  which  is  drawn  in 
Scripture  between  Adam  in  his  relation  to  his  descendants,  and 
Christ  in  his  relation  to  his  elect,  Kom.  v.,  12-19,  and  1  Cor.  xv., 
22,  47. 

2d.  From  the  matter  of  fact  that  the  very  penalty  denounced 
upon  Adam,  in  case  of  his  disobedience,  has  taken  effect  in  each 
individual  descendant. — Gen.  ii.,  17  ;  iii.,  17, 18. 

3d.  From  the  biblical  declaration  that  sin,  death,  and  all 
penal  evil  came  into  the  world  through  Adam. — Rom.  v.,  12  ;  1 
Cor.  XV.,  22.  See  below.  Chapter  XVI.,  questions  14-23,  on  Im- 
putation of  Adam's  Sin. 


230  COVENANT   OF    WORKS, 

7.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  probation  ? 

A  probation  is  a  trial.  The  word  is  sometimes  used  to 
express  the  time,  and  sometimes  the  state,  and  at  others  the 
act  of  trial.  The  probation  of  the  human  race  took  place  once 
for  all  in  the  trial  of  Adam  in  the  garden  of  Eden.  That  trial 
resulted  in  loss,  and  since  then  the  conditions  of  the  covenant 
being  impossible,  and  its  penalty  having  been  incurred,  any  pro- 
bation is  of  course  impossible.  "  Men  are  by  nature  children  of 
wrath." 

Considering  the  advantages  of  Adam's  character  and  circum- 
stances in  Paradise,  our  probation  in  him  appears  immeasurably 
more  favorable  than  it  would  have  been  if  each  individual  of  us 
could  have  a  separate  probation  in  the  dawn  of  moral  agency  in 
infancy. 

8.  Hoio  far  docs  the  covenant  appear  to  rest  upon  natural 
and  universal  principles  of  justice,  and  how  far  upon  the  special 
and  sovereign  ordination  of  God  ? 

It  appears  to  be  founded  on  a  basis  of  natural  and  universal 
justice  in  respect  to  the  following  elements  :  1st.  The  promise  of 
divine  favor,  conditioned  upon  perfect  obedience.  2d.  The  threat- 
ened penalty  of  death,  conditioned  upon  disobedience.  3d.  The 
appointment  of  a  probationary  period,  during  which  man's  loyalty 
was  tested,  upon  which  test  his  future  character  and  destiny  was 
made  to  depend. 

It  appears,  on  the  other  hand,  to  rest  upon  the  special  and 
sovereign,  though  most  wise,  righteous,  and  merciful  ordination 
of  God,  in  respect,  1st,  to  the  representative  element  involved, 
whereby  Adam  stood  for  all  his  descendants  ;  2d,  to  the  ap- 
pointing of  abstinence  from  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  as 
the  special  test  of  obedience. 

9.  What  was  the  condition  of  that  covenant  ? 

Perfect  conformity  of  heart,  and  perfect  obedience  in  act  to 
the  whole  will  of  God  as  far  as  revealed.  The  command  to  ab- 
stain from  eating  the  forbidden  fruit  was  only  made  a  special  and 
decisive  test  of  that  general  obedience.  As  the  matter  forbidden 
was  morally  indifferent  in  itself,  the  command  was  admirably 


ITS   CONDITION.  231 

adapted  to  be  a  clear  and  naked  test  of  submission  to  G-od's  ab- 
solute will  as  such. 

10.  Was  there  any  virtue  in  the  obedience  required  which 
could,  of  itself ,  have  merited' the  promised  reward? 

It  is  infinitely  absurd  to  conceive  of  tlic  creature  as  ever  merit- 
ing any  thing  from  the  Creator.  Creation  itself,  and  every  op- 
portunity for  either  obedience  or  enjoyment,  is  a  free  gift,  and  a 
ground  of  thanksgiving. — 1  Cor.  iv.,  7. 

The  covenant  of  works,  therefore,  was  a  further  gracious  con- 
stitution, wherein  additional  benefits  were  promised  to  the  crea- 
ture on  the  condition  of  the  performance  of  duties  already  due. 
The  only  right  the  creature  would  have  acquired  in  case  of  obe- 
dience would  have  sprung  from  the  free  promise  of  God  in  the 
covenant  itself. 

11.  What  was  the  promise  of  the  covenant  ? 

The  promise  was  not  expressly  stated,  yet  that  it  was  life, 
or  confirmation  in  a  holy  character,  and  in  the  blessedness  of 
God's  favor,  is  evidently  implied  in  the  very  language  of  the 
threatened  penalty,  as  appears  clearly  from  Matt,  xix.,  16,  17 ; 
Gal.  iii.,  12. 

12.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  death  threatened  in  case  of 
disobedience  ? 

This  word  in  this  connection  evidently  includes  all  the  penal 
consequences  of  sin.  These  are,  1st,  death,  natural,  Eccle.  xii.,  7; 
2d,  death,  moral  and  spiritual.  Matt,  viii.,  22  ;  Eph.  ii.,  1;  1  Tim. 
v.,  6  ;  Rev.  iii.,  1 ;  3d,  death,  eternal.  Rev.  xx.,  6-14. 

The  instant  the  law  was  violated  its  penalty  began  to  operate, 
although  on  account  of  the  intervention  of  the  disj)ensation  of 
grace  the  full  effect  of  the  sentence  is  suspended  during  the  pre- 
sent life.  The  Spirit  of  God  was  withdrawn  the  instant  man  fell, 
and  he  at  once  became  spiritually  dead,  physically  mortal,  and 
under  sentence  of  death  eternal. 

13.  What  is  meant  by  the  seal  of  a  covenant,  and  lohat  was 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  of  works  ? 

A  seal  of  a  covenant  is  an  outward  visible  sign,  appointed  by 


232  COVENANT    OF   WORKS. 

God  as  a  pledge  of  his  faithfulness,  and  as  an  earnest  of  the  bless- 
ings promised  in  the  covenant. 

Thus  the  rainbow  is  the  seal  of  the  covenant  made  with  Noah, 
Gen.  ix.,  12,  13.  Circumcision  was  the  original  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Abraham,  (Gen.  xvii.,  9-11 ;  Kom.  iv.,  11,)  in 
the  place  of  which  baptism  is  now  instituted.  Col.  ii.,  11,  12; 
Gal.  iii.,  26,  27.  The  tree  of  life  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  because  it  was  the  outward  sign  and  seal  of  that  life  which 
was  promised  in  the  covenant,  and  from  which  man  was  ex- 
cluded on  account  of  sin,  and  to  which  he  is  restored  through  the 
second  Adam  in  the  Paradise  regained.  Compare  Gen.  ii.,  9;  iii., 
22,  24,  with  Eev.  ii.,  7  ;  xxii.,  2-14. 


C  HAP  T  E  R    XVI. 

THE     NATURE    OF    SIN. — THE    SIN    OF    ADAM,    AND    THE     CONSE- 
QUENCES  THEREOF   TO   HIS   POSTERITY. 

1.  Eow  is  sin  defined  in  our  standards  ? 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  VI.,  Section  6,  L.  Cat.,  ques- 
tion 24,  S.  Cat.,  question  14. 

Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  either  of  the  moral  state  of  the 
soul,  or  of  the  actions  of  a  man  to  the  law  of  God.  Vitringa's 
definition  is,  "  Forma  peccati  est  disconvenientia,  actus,  habitus, 
aut  status  hominis  cum  divina  lege,"  1  John  iii.  4. 

2.  What  is  the  primary  signification  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  words  used  to  express  the  idea  of  sin  in  the  original 
Scriptures  ? 

The  radical  meaning  of  both  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  for 
sin  is  to  miss,  to  fail,  not  to  hit  the  mark,  then  to  err  from  a  rule 
or  law  (xiafj,  ' An-aQidvo)^  hence  dfiagria  and  dvofiia,  ivant  of  confor- 
mity to  the  standard  of  the  law). 

Thus  sin  is  not  represented  as  a  new,  positive  quality  dif[used 
in  the  soul,  but  as  originating  in  a  disordered  action  of  the  natu- 
ral principles  of  the  soul,  leading  thus  to  positive  desires  and 
affections  contrary  to  the  law  of  conscience,  since  that  defect 
which  consists  in  the  absence  of  right  desires  leads  immediately 
to  the  presence  of  sinful  ones. 

3.  What  are  the  three  senses  in  which  the  term  sin  is  used  in 
Scripture  ? 

1st.  As  the  moral  state  of  the  sinner's  heart,  a  power  which 
controls,  and  a  corruption  which  defiles  him. — Ps.  li,,  2-5;  Kom. 
vii.,  8. 

2d.  As  an  act  transgressing  or  failing  to  fulfill  the  law  of 
God. — James  i.,  15. 


234  SIN. 

3d.  As  guilt  or  just  liability  to  punishment. — Ps.  xxxii.,  1; 
2  Cor.  v.,  21  ;  Heb.  x.,  2. 

4.  What  is  meant  when  it  is  said  that  all  sin  is  voluntary  ? 

It  is  meant  that  all  sin  has  its  root  in  the  perverted  disposi- 
tions, desires,  and  affections  which  constitute  the  depraved  state 
of  the  will  ;  this  darkens  the  mind  and  controls  the  actions.  If 
the  will,  as  to  moral  states,  is  conformed  to  the  law  of  God,  then 
the  man  will  be  without  sin.  Disease,  physical  derangement  in 
the  essence  of  soul  or  body,  can  not  be  of  the  nature  of  sin. 

Pelagians  hold  that  sin  consists  solely  in  actions,  and  is  vol- 
untary in  the  sense  that  only  volitions  transgressing  known  law 
are  sin. 

5.  Hoio  can  it  he  proved  that  the  depraved  moral  condition 
of  the  heart  {or  ivilV)  is  as  truly  sin  as  the  actions  which  fiow 
from  it  ? 

1st.  It  is  the  universal  judgment  of  men,  (1),  that  the  dispo- 
sition which  determines  an  act  is  that  which  gives  the  act  its 
moral  character  ;  (2),  that  the  heart  of  a  man  who  habitually  per- 
forms sinful  actions  is  itself  corrupt.  This  is  what  is  understood  by 
character,  and  it  is  this  character,  and  not  the  mere  act,  which 
men  regard  as  the  principal  object  of  moral  approbation  or  dis- 
approbation. 

2d.  This  principle  is  distinctly  asserted  by  our  Saviour. — 
Luke  vi.,  43-45. 

3d.  That  state  of  the  heart  which  gives  rise  to  sinful  actions  is 
expressly  called  sin. — Rom.  vii.,  7-17  ;  John  viii.,  34. 

6.  What  are  the  conditions  necessary  to  constitute  any  act  a 
sin  ? 

Only  a  moral  agent,  or  one  endowed  with  intelligence,  con- 
science, and  free  will  can  sin.  Any  act  of  such  an  agent,  which 
is  not  conformed  to  the  law  of  Grod,  as  far  as  that  law  has  been 
revealed  to  that  agent,  is  a  sin. 

Deliberate  intention  to  sin  is  an  aggravating  element,  the  com- 
mon quality  of  what  the  Scriptures  call  "  presumptuous  sins," 
(Ps.  xix.,  12, 13,)  but  it  is  not  essential  to  constitute  any  act  a  sin. 
For  it  is  evident  that  those  spontaneous,  undeliberate  movements 


NATURE    OF    SIN.  235 

of  lust  called  "  secret  sins/'  which  sjii-ing  from  the  corruptions  of 
the  heart,  are  sinful  also. 

Clear  knowledge  of  the  sinfulness  of  an  act  is  also  an  aggra- 
vating element  in  any  sin,  but  not  essential  to  constitute  an  act 
a  sin,  except  in  case  of  involuntary  ignorance  of  some  positive 
command  of  God.  Because  moral  blindnesss,  leading  to  ignor- 
ance of  the  essential  principles  of  natural  conscience,  is  itself  a 
condition  of  aggravated  depravity. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  the  conscious  motive  to  the  act  should 
Le  positively  sinful,  it  may  be  only  morally  indifferent,  because 
the  absence  of  right  affections  and  omissions  of  duty  are  sins. 

Ability  to  fulfill  the  requirements  of  the  law  is  not  necessary  to 
constitute  the  non-fulfilment  sin. — See  Chap.  XVIII.,  question  25. 

7.  What  api^ars  from  the  histoi-'y  of  the  Full  to  have  been 
the  precise  nature  of  the  first  sin  of  Adam  ? 

It  appears  from  the  record  (Gen.  iii.,  1-6)  that  the  initial 
motives  influencing  our  first  parents,  in  their  first  transgression, 
were  in  themselves  considered  morally  indifferent.  These  were, 
1st,  natural  appetite  for  the  attractive  fruit.  2d.  Natural  de- 
sire for  knowledge.  3d.  The  persuasive  power  of  Satan  upon 
Eve,  including  the  known  influence  of  a  superior  mind  and  will. 
4th.  The  persuasive  power  of  both  Satan  and  Eve  upon  Adam. 
Their  dreadful  sin  appears  to  have  been  essentially,  1st,  unbelief, 
they  virtually  made  God  a  liar.  2d.  Deliberate  disobedience, 
they  set  up  their  will  as  a  law  in  place  of  his. 

8.  Hoiofar  loas  God  concerned  in  the  occurrence  of  that  sin  ? 

The  inexplicable  mystery  of  the  origin  of  moral  evil  is  two- 
fold. 

1st.  How  could  sin,  the  essence  of  which  is  want  of  conformity 
to  God's  will,  find  place  in  the  creation  and  under  the  providen- 
tial administration  of  an  infinitely  wise,  holy,  and  powerful 
God  !     This  we  can  not  answer. 

2d.  How  could  the  first  sin  originate  in  the  will  of  a  creature 
created  with  a  holy  disposition. — See  next  question. 

This  mystery,  however,  in  both  its  parts  concerns  first  and 
chiefly  the  apostacy  of  the  Devil  and  his  angels,  which  was  the 
true  origin  of  sin  in  the  universe,  and  concerning  the  facts  con- 


236  SIN. 

ditioning  which  we  are  not  informed.     The  apostacy  of  Adam 
evidently  is  dependent  upon  the  other. 

Concerning  the  relation  sustained  by  God  to  the  sin  of  Adam 
all  we  know  is,  1st,  God  created  Adam  holy,  with  all  natural 
powers  necessary  for  accountable  agency.  2d.  He  rightfully  with- 
held from  him,  dming  his  probation,  any  higher  supernatural  in- 
fluence necessary  to  render  him  infallible.  3d.  He  neither  caused 
nor  approved  Adam's  sin.  4th.  He  sovereignly  decreed  to  per- 
mit him  to  sin,  thus  determining  that  he  should  sin  as  he  did. 

9.  Hoio  is  it  conceivable  that  sin  should  originate  in  the  will 
of  a  creature  created  with  a  positively  holy  disposition  ? 

The  difficulty  is  to  reconcile  understandingly  the  fact  that  sin 
did  so  originate, 

1st.  With  the  known  constitution  of  the  human  will.  If  the 
volitions  are  as  the  prevalent  affections  and  desires,  and  if  the 
affections  and  desires  excited  by  outward  occasions  are  good  or 
evil,  according  to  the  permanent  moral  state  of  the  will,  how 
could  a  sinful  volition  originate  in  a  holy  will  ? 

2d.  With  universal  experience.  As  it  is  impossible  that  a 
sinful  desire  or  volition  should  originate  in  the  holy  will  of  God, 
or  in  the  holy  will  of  saints  and  angels,  or  that  a  truly  holy  affec- 
tion or  volition  should  originate  in  the  depraved  wills  of  fallen 
men  without  supernatural  regeneration  (Luke  vi.,  43-45),  how 
could  a  sinful  volition  originate  in  the  holy  will  of  Adam  ? 

That  Adam  was  created  with  a  holy  yet  fallible  will,  and  that 
he  did  fall  are  facts  established  by  divine  testimony.  We  must 
believe  them,  although  we  can  not  rationally  explain  them. 
This  is  for  us  imj^ossible,  1st,  because  there  remains  an  inscrut- 
able element  in  the  human  will,  adopt  whichever  theory  of  it  we 
may. 

2d.  Because  all  our  reasoning  must  be  based  upon  conscious- 
ness, and  no  other  man  ever  had  in  his  consciousness  the  experi- 
ence of  Adam.  The  origin  of  our  sinful  volitions  is  plain  enough. 
But  we  lack  some  of  the  data  necessary  to  explain  his  case. 

In  the  way  of  approximation,  however,  we  may  observe,  1st, 
it  is  unsound  to  reason  from  the  independent  will  of  the  infinite 
God  to  the  dependent  will  of  the  creature. 

2d.  The  infallibility  of  saints  and  angels  is  not  inherent,  but 


Adam's  sin.  237 

is  a  superinduced  confirming  grace  of  God,  Tliey  are  not  in  a 
state  of  probation.  Adam  was — his  will  was  free,  but  not  con- 
firmed. 

3d.  The  depraved  will  of  man  can  not  originate  holy  affec- 
tions and  volitions,  because  the  presence  of  a  positively  holy  prin- 
ciple is  necessary  to  constitute  them  holy.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  were  already  in  the  holy  will  of  Adam  many  princi- 
ples morally  indifferent,  in  themselves  neither  good  nor  bad,  and 
becoming  sinful  only  when,  in  default  of  the  control  of  reason  and 
conscience,  they  prompt  to  their  indulgence  in  ways  forbidden  by 
God  ;  e.  g.,  admiration  and  appetite  for  the  fruit,  and  desire  for 
knowledge.  The  sin  commenced  the  moment  that,  under  the 
powerful  persuasion  of  Satan,  these  two  motives  were  dwelt  upon 
in  spite  of  the  prohibition,  and  thus  allowed  to  become  so  preva- 
lent in  the  soul  as  temporarily  to  neutralize  reverence  for  God's 
authority,  and  fear  of  his  threatening. 

4th.  Adam,  although  endowed  with  a  holy  disposition,  was 
inexperienced  in  the  assaults  of  temptation. 

5th.  He  was  assailed  through  the  morally  indifferent  princi- 
ples of  his  nature  by  a  vastly  superior  intelligence  and  character, 
to  whom,  in  the  highest  sense,  the  origin  of  all  sin  must  be 
referred. 

10.  What  was  the  effect  of  Adam's  sin  upon  himself? 

1st.  In  the  natural  relation  which  Adam  sustained  to  God  as 
the  subject  of  his  moral  government,  his  sin  must  have  instantly 
had  the  effect  of  (1.)  displeasing  and  alienating  God,  and  (2.)  de- 
praving his  own  soul. 

2d.  In  the  covenant  relation  which  Adam  sustained  to  God 
the  penalty  of  the  covenant  of  works  was  incurred,  i.  e.,  death 
including,  (1.)  mortality  of  body,  (2.)  corruption  of  soul,  (3.)  sen- 
tence of  eternal  death. 

11.  In  2vhat  sense  did  he  become  totally  depraved,  and  how 
coidd  total  depravity  result  from  one  sin  ? 

By  the  affirmation  that  total  depravity  was  the  immediate 
result  of  Adam's  first  sin,  it  is  not  meant  that  he  became  as  bad 
as  he  could  be,  or  even  as  corrupt  as  the  best  of  his  unregenerate 
descendants  ;  but  it  is  meant — 1st.   His  apostasy  from  God  was 


238  SIN. 

complete.  God  demands  perfect  obedience.  Adam  was  now  a 
rebel  in  arms. 

2d.  That  the  favor  and  communion  of  God,  the  sole  condition 
of  his  spiritual  life,  was  withdrawn, 

3d.  A  schism  was  introduced  into  the  soul  itself.  The  pain- 
ful reproaches  of  conscience  were  excited,  and  could  never  be 
allayed  without  an  atonement.  This  led  to  fear  of  God,  distrust, 
prevarication,  and,  by  necessary  consequence,  to  innumerable 
other  sins. 

4th.  Thus  the  whole  nature  became  depraved.  The  will  being 
at  war  with  the  conscience,  the  understanding  became  darkened  ; 
the  conscience,  in  consequence  of  constant  outrage  and  neglect, 
became  seared  ;  the  appetites  of  the  body  inordinate,  and  its 
members  instruments  of  umighteousness. 

5th.  There  remained  in  man's  nature  no  recuperative  princi- 
ple ;  he  must  go  on  from  worse  to  worse,  unless  God  interpose. 

Thus  the  soul  of  man  being  essentially  active,  although  one 
sin  did  not  establish  a  confirmed  habit,  it  did  alienate  God  and 
work  confusion  in  the  soul,  and  thus  lead  to  an  endless  course 
of  sin. 

12.  What  is  the  Pelagian  doctrine  as  to  the  effect  of  Adam's 
sin  upon  his  posterity  ? 

Pelagians  hold,  1st,  with  regard  to  sin,  that  it  is  an  act  of 
voluntary  transgression  of  known  law,  and  nothing  else.  2d. 
With  regard  to  free  will,  "  that  is  of  its  essence  that  a  man 
should  have  it  in  his  power  as  much  to  cease  from  sinning  as  to 
deviate  from  the  path  of  rectitude  ;  therefore,  a  man's  natural 
state  is  not  changed  (rendered  corrupt)  by  sinning,  but  he  only 
l)ecomes  guilty,  i.  e.,  liable  to  punishment." 

They  consequently  deny,  1st,  that  Adam's  sin  could  corrupt 
•by  natural  generation  the  natures  of  his  descendants.  2d.  That 
the  guilt  (legal  responsibility)  of  his  sin  is  imputed  to  them. 
3d.  That  death  and  the  physical  evils  of  this  life,  common  to  in- 
fants and  adults,  good  and  bad  men  alike,  are  penal.  They  hold 
these  evils  to  be  incident  naturally  to  man's  present  life,  and  that 
infants  being  born  as  innocent  and  perfect,  though  as  fallible,  as 
Adam,  fall  into  sin  through  the  force  of  example, — Princeton 
Theo.  Essays,  pp.  102  and  103, 


IMPUTATION    OF    ADAM'S   SIN.  239 

13.  What  is  the  Arminian  view  on  this  point  ? 

The  Arminian  system  denies,  1st,  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin 
is  judicially  imputed  to  his  descendants.  2d.  That  the  corruption 
of  nature,  which  they  inherit  from  him  by  ordinary  generation, 
and  as  natural  heirs,  is  properly  of  the  nature  of  sin,  and  deserv- 
ing of  the  wrath  of  Grod,  since  it  is  involuntary.  It  maintains, 
however,  that  all  men  inherit  from  Adam  a  natural  infirmity, 
characterized  as  a  destitution  of  original  righteousness,  making  it 
certain  that  every  individual  uniformly  sins  as  soon  as  he  com- 
mences voluntary  agency. — Apol.  Conf.  Kemonstr.,  p.  84  ;  Lim- 
borch  Theol.  Christ,  iii.,  4,  4. 

Death  and  the  physical  evils  of  this  life  are  not  properly  the 
penal,  but  merely  the  natural  consequences  of  Adam's  sin. 

14.  What  is  the  orthodox  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

As  Adam  was  the  federal  representative,  as  well  as  the  natu- 
ral head  and  root,  of  all  his  descendants,  the  guilt,  i.  e.,  legal  re- 
sponsibility of  his  public  sin,  which  closed  his  probation  and 
theirs,  is  righteously  imputed  to  them,  and  its  penal  consequences, 
the  wrath  of  God,  divorcement  from  his  Spirit,  spiritual,  natural, 
and  eternal  death,  is  inflicted  upon  them,  in  the  line,  and  in  part 
through  the  agency  of  natural  generation. — Conf.  Faith,  chap.  6, 
sec.  3  ;  L.  Cat,  Q.  25  ;  S.  Cat.,  Q.  18. 

15.  What  is  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  luords  trans- 
lated "  to  impute"  aiprj,  Xoyi^oiiai  ? 

The  radical  sense  of  these  words  in  both  languages  is  to  think, 
to  reason  ;  then  to  judge  or  conclude  ;  then  to  esteem  or  regard  ; 
then  to  impute  or  attribute,  in  which  latter  sense  they  occur  in 
Ps.  xxxii.,  2  ;  2  Sam.  xix.,  19  ;  Rom.  iv.,  6-24  ;  2  Cor.  v ,  19  ; 
Gal.  iii.,  6  ;  James  ii.,  23. 

The  English  word  "impute"  means,  Ist,  to  ascribe  to  persons 
or  things  qualities  which  inhere  in  them  ;  2d,  to  ascribe  to  per- 
sons responsibilities  or  rights  which  attach  to  them  according  to 
some  recognized  rule  of  right. 

16.  In  what  sense  icas  Adam's  sin  imputed  to  all  his  pos- 
terity ? 


240  SIN. 

Sin  is  used  in  the  sense  of,  1st,  the  \n-ong  moral  condition  or 
character  of  the  will  or  heart ;  2d,  an  act  transgressing  moral 
law ;  3d,  guilt,  or  legal  responsibility  for  that  which  has  trans- 
gressed law.  In  the  first  and  second  senses,  sin  can  be  imputed 
only  to  the  sinful  agent  himself  In  the  third  sense,  of  legal  re- 
sponsibility, the  guilt  of  the  sinful  act  of  one  man  may  be  im- 
puted to  another,  when  that  other  is  justly  responsible  for  his 
conduct  in  the  case.  God  never  regards  Adam's  sinful  disposi- 
tion or  character  as  ours,  nor  his  act  of  eating  the  forbidden  fruit 
as  our  act,  as  a  matter  of  fact.  But  the  legal  responsibility  of 
his  act  God  does  righteously  impute  to  us,  since  Adam  being  our 
legal  representative,  we  are  legally  responsible  for  his  action  in 
that  character. 

There  is  included,  therefore,  in  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin — 1st.  The  recognition  of  our  legal  one- 
ness with  Adam,  on  the  ground  of  that  sovereign  though  right- 
eous element  of  the  covenant  of  works  which  makes  us  legally 
responsible  for  his  public  action. 

2d.  The  charging  or  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  his  public  sin 
upon  us. 

3d.  The  most  righteous  treatment  of  us  according  to  the  de- 
merits of  that  sin. 

17.  What  is  the  7iature  of  the  union  of  Adam  and  his  pos- 
terity, tvhich  is  the  ground  of  the  imputation  of  his  sin  to  them  '^ 

This  union  with  them  is  two-fold :  1st.  Natural,  as  the  root 
of  the  whole  human  family.  2d.  Federal,  as,  by  that  divine  con- 
stitution called  the  covenant  of  works,  he  represented  and  acted 
in  behalf  of  all  his  descendants.  It  is  the  second,  or  federal  union 
which  is  the  legal  ground  of  the  imputation  of  his  sin  to  them. 

On  the  otlier  hand,  the  ground  in  reason  and  right  for  the 
constitution  of  that  federal  union  appears,  1st.  In  the  sovereign 
right  of  God  to  order  the  probation  of  his  creatures  as  he  pleases, 
which  right  he  evidently  in  this  instance  exercised  most  merci- 
fully, in  appointing  the  probation  of  the  human  family  under  the 
most  favorable  circumstances.  2d.  Adam's  natural  relation  to 
his  children  made  him  tlio  proper  person  to  represent  them.  3c1. 
The  headship  of  the  first  Adam  is  part  of  that  unsearchable  plan 
w^hich  culminates  in  the  headship  of  the  second  Adam. 


IMPUTATION   OF   ADAM'S   SIN.  241 

18.  What  evidence  on  this  subject  may  he  derived  from  the 
history  of  the  fall  ? 

In  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis  Adam  is  presented  as  a  public 
person,  the  human  race,  as  a  whole,  being  involved  in  the  trans- 
action. This  appears — 1st.  Because  Adam's  name  is  generic  as 
well  as  personal.     It  signifies  (1.)  red  earth,  (2.)  man. 

2d.  All  his  posterity  are  equally  involved  in  the  judicial  sen- 
tence which  was  immediately  pronounced,  e.  g.,  the  pain  of  child- 
bearing,  the  curse  of  the  gi'ound,  the  sentence  to  live  by  painful 
labor,  and  physical  death. 

3d.  All  his  posterity  have  equal  interest  with  him  in  the 
promise  of  the  woman's  seed,  which  was  then  graciously  made. 

19.  Hoio  may  the  timth  of  this  doctrine  he  established  from 
Rom.  v.,  12-21,  and  1  Cor.  xv.,  21,  22  ? 

In  Rom.  v.,  12-21,  the  apostle  is  engaged  in  illustrating  the 
method  of  justification  through  Christ  by  the  parallel  fact  of  the 
condemnation  of  men  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  The  latter 
fact  he  proves  thus  :  "  The  infliction  of  a  penalty  proves  the 
transgression  of  a  law,  since  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no 
law  (v.  13.)  All  mankind  are  subject  to  death  or  penal  evils, 
therefore  all  men  are  regarded  as  transgressors  of  a  law,  v.  13. 
This  is  not  the  law  of  Moses,  because  multitudes  died  before  that 
law  was  given,  v.  14.  Nor  is  it  the  law  of  nature  written  upon 
the  heart,  since  multitudes  (infants)  die  who  never  violated  even 
that  law,  V.  14.  Therefore,  as  neither  of  these  laws  embrace  all 
the  subjects  of  the  penalty,  we  must  conclude  that  men  were  sub- 
ject to  death  on  account  of  Adam  ;  i.  e.,  it  was  for  the  ofiense  of 
one  that  many  die  (vs.  12,  15),  and  Adam  is  a  type  of  Christ." — 
Hodge's  Com.  on  Rom. 

1  Cor.  XV.,  21,  22,  asserts  the  same  truth.  All  die  in  Adam, 
not  only  efficiently  but  meritoriously,  because  our  relation  to 
Adam,  as  legally  one  with  him,  is  analogous  to  the  relation  of 
the  elect  to  Christ. 

20.  What  other  scriptural  proof  of  this  doctrine  may  he  ad- 
duced ? 

This  doctiine  is  expressly  asserted  only  in  the  passages  above 

16 


242  SIN. 

cited.  The  principle  involved,  however,  is  affirmed  in  many 
places  ;  e.  ^.,  second  commandment,  Ex.  xx.,  5.  Case  of  Achan, 
Josh.  vii.  ;  of  Saul's  sous,  2  Sam.,  xxi. ;  and  of  Jeroboam,  1  Kings 
xiv.,  9-16,  etc.,  etc. 

21.  Hoio  mmj  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  he  argued  from 
the  fact  that  toe  are  horn  in  sin  ? 

The  being  born  alienated  from  God,  from  which  the  corrup- 
tion of  our  nature  results,  is  itself  not  a  sin,  but  a  dreadful  pun- 
ishment. But  punishment  argues  guilt,  universal  punishment 
universal  guilt,  and  the  punishment  of  all  men  can  be  referred  to 
no  other  cause  than  to  the  universal  guilt  of  all  in  Adam. 

22.  How  is  this  doctrine  of  imputation  involved  in  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  ? 

The  doctrine  of  the  substitution  of  Christ  in  the  place  of  his 
elect,  of  the  imputation  of  their  sins  to  him,  and  of  his  righteous- 
ness to  them,  is  the  central  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  involving  all 
that  is  taught  us  concerning  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  justifi- 
cation, justifying  faith,  etc. — See  Chap.  XXII.  and  XXVII., 
where  many  clear  and  copious  arguments  from  the  Scriptures  are 
presented  to  establish  this  principle  of  imputation,  especially  under 
the  head  of  atonement,  its  nature. 

But  in  Kom  v.,  12-19,  and  1  Cor.  xv.,  21,  22,  the  relation  of 
men  to  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is  declared  to  be  identical  as  to 
principle  with  that  relation  which  the  justified  sustain  to  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.     The  two  stand  or  fall  together. 

23.  What  difficulties  flow  from  denying  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  ? 

1st.  The  perversion  of  the  clear  testimony  of  God's  word,  as 
above  shown. 

2d.  The  perversion  of  the  great  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 

3d.  If  we  had  no  j^robation  in  Adam,  it  would  follow  that 
every  individual  member  of  the  human  family  has  been  intro- 
duced into  an  estate  of  sin  and  misery  without  any  probation 
at  all. 

4th.  All  Christians  hold  that  our  present  condition  is  in  con- 
sequence of  Adam's  sin.     But  if  the  legal  responsibility  of  Adam's 


IMPUTATION   OF    ADAM'S   SIN.  243 

sin  is  not  imputed,  it  would  follow  that  all  these  consequences 
have  been  arbitrarily  inflicted  without  any  legal  ground  whatso- 
ever. Yet  Paul  calls  these  consequences  a  "condemnation." — 
Rom.  v.,  16,  18. 

24.  How  can  this  doctrine  he  reconciled  loith  the  justice  of 
God? 

The  unquestionable  fact  is  that  Adam's  sin  involved  the  race 
in  ruin.  Whatever  difficulty  exists  in  the  matter  lies  there.  The 
doctrine  of  imputation  vindicates  the  justice  of  Grod  by  maintain- 
ing that  all  men  had  a  probation  under  favorable  conditions,  and 
that  their  present  suffering  has  been  inflicted  according  to  law. 

25.  Are  men  hound  to  repent  of  Adam's  sin  ? 

The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  us  did  not  make  his  sin  our 
act,  nor  did  it  convey  his  moral  character,  nor  the  shame  or  pol- 
lution of  his  sin  to  us,  but  simply  the  legal  responsibility  of  it. 
We  can  no  more  repent  of  Adam's  sin,  in  any  other  sense  than 
of  being  sorry  for  it,  than  wc  can  feel  self-complacent  on  account 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  graciously  imputed  to  us. 

26.  Hoio  can  this  doctrine  be  reconciled  with  such  passages 
as  Ezek.  xviii.,  20  ? 

The  prophet  can  not  mean  that  no  man  ever  shall  bear  the 
iniquity  of  another,  because  other  texts  teach  the  contrary,  (see 
above,  question  20.)  His  design  is  to  direct  the  consciences  of 
the  people  to  their  own  sins,  and  he  asserts  merely  the  general 
purpose  of  God  with  regard  to  his  treatment  of  the  personal  sins 
of  individuals  in  the  ordinary  relations  of  life. 

27.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputation  ? 

The  doctrine  we  have  above  presented  has  been  taught  in  the 
confessions  of  all  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran  churches,  by  all  the 
reformers  and  by  all  theologians  of  the  Augustinian  school  in  the 
Church  of  Rome.  But  Joshua  Placaius,  a  professor  of  theology 
in  the  school  at  Saumur,  in  France,  in  order  to  defend  himself 
from  the  adverse  judgment  of  the  Synod  of  France,  A.  D.  1645, 
invented  the  distinction  between  mediate,  or  consequent  and  im- 
mediate  or  antecedent   imputation.     Immediate  or  antecedent 


244  SIN. 

imputation  is  the  orthodox  doctrine  above  taught,  viz.,  that  the 
legal  responsibility  of  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  his  descendants 
immediately,  and  that  their  inheritance  from  him  of  their  corrupt 
natures  is  in  consequence  of  that  imputation.  Mediate  or  conse- 
quent imputation  designates  the  theory  of  Placasus,  who  held  that 
God  charges  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity  only  in 
consequence  of  that  inherent  depravity  which  they  inherit  by  na- 
tural generation,  i.  e.,  we  are  associated  with  Adam  in  his  pun- 
ishment, because  we  are  like  him,  sinners. 

This  thcoiy  is  evidently  a  virtual,  though  indirect  denial  of 
any  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  whatsoever.  If  the 
same  penalty  which  was  adjudged  to  him  is  adjudged  to  us  only 
because  we  are  personally  depraved,  it  is  plain  that  the  legal  re- 
sponsibility of  his  sin  is  not  imputed  to  us,  but  only  our  own 
inherent  depravity.  Besides  this  theory,  moreover,  makes  the  im- 
putation of  Adam's  sin  an  effect  of  its  own  consequence.  The 
truth  is,  we  are  abandoned  by  God,  and  so  become  inherentl}" 
depraved  as  a  part  of  the  penalty  of  Adam's  transgression,  other- 
wise where  were  the  justice  of  involving  us  in  such  a  fate  ?  And, 
worse  than  all,  this  theory  of  imputation  leads  by  logical  neces- 
sity to  the  perversion  of  the  doctrine  of  justification.  The  analogy 
is  affirmed  by  God.  If  Adam's  sin  is  imputed,  in  consequence  of 
our  inherent  depravity,  we  must  attain  an  interest  in  Christ's 
righteousness  in  consequence  of  our  sanctification. 

28.  What  IS  the  theory  which  assumes  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
was  literally  and  strictly  the  sin  of  the  whole  race,  and  what  are 
the  principal  objections  to  it  ? 

This  is  identical  with  the  realistic  theory,  so  prominent  in 
scholastic  theology  and  media3val  philosophy,  which  assumes  that 
universals  as  genera,  species,  etc.,  are  objective  realities.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view  human  nature  is  a  substance,  or  essence,  created 
and  concentrated  in  the  first  instance  in  the  person  of  Adam,  and 
from  him  transmitted  to  all  his  descendants.  The  same  numeri- 
cal substance  wliich  now  subsists  in  individual  men,  it  is  asserted, 
sinned  in  Adam.  His  sin,  therefore,  was  as  much  and  as  truly 
ours  as  it  was  his.  It  is  imputed  to  us  because  it  is  ours,  as  it 
was  imputed  to  him  because  it  was  his. 

The  principal  objections  to  this  theory  are,  1st,  it  is  an  un- 


IMPUTATION   OF   ADAM'S   SIN.  245 

supported  hypothesis.  There  can  be  no  evidence  of  any  such 
generic  human  nature,  if  all  known  phenomena  can  be  otherwise 
accounted  for.  But  all  the  facts  as  to  the  permanence  of  species 
and  the  propagation  of  peculiarities  of  nature  can  be  explained  as 
well  without  as  with  this  hypothesis.  And  if  not  capable  of 
proof  by  observation  it  can  not  be  proved  from  Scripture,  because 
it  is  not  the  design  of  the  Bible  to  teach  metaphysics.  2d.  It  is 
rationalistic  to  make  a  philosophical  assumption  of  this  kind  the 
controling  principle  in  interpreting  the  whole  doctiine  of  the  fall 
and  redemption  of  man.  3d.  The  theory  that  community  in  a 
propagated  nature  constitutes  the  identity  of  all  those  to  whom 
that  nature  is  communicated,  and  involves  them  all  in  the  rela- 
tions, moral  and  legal,  of  their  common  progenitor,  leads  to 
manifold  absurdities  and  contradictions.  There  is  no  reason  why 
the  application  of  this  principle  should  be  restricted  to  the  single 
case  of  Adam.  The  Hebrews  were  in  Abraham,  so  far  as  com- 
munity of  nature  was  concerned,  as  much  as  mankind  were  in 
Adam.  The  common  consciousness  of  mankind  testifies  that  we 
are  not  involved  in  the  moral  character  and  conduct  of  each  one 
of  our  progenitors  in  consequence  of  our  derivation  of  existence 
from  them.  The  distinction  between  acts  of  nature  and  personal 
acts,  by  which  this  conclusion  is  sought  to  be  avoided,  means 
nothing.  It  besides  contradicts  the  consciousness  of  men  to  say 
that  we  should  suffer  remorse  and  self-condemnation  for  Adam's 
sin.  Unless  the  understanding  is  confused  the  conscience  can  de- 
liver no  such  verdict.  4th.  The  principle  that  God  can  not,  on 
the  ground  of  representation,  or  legal  and  federal  union,  regard 
and  treat  those  not  personally  guilty  as  guilty,  and  those  not  per- 
sonally righteous  as  righteous,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
this  whole  theory,  is  contrary  to  the  repeated  and  express  decla- 
tions  of  Scripture,  and  to  the  facts  of  providence.  The  Bible 
distinctly  asserts  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  as  something  out  of  our- 
selves, is  the  gi'ound  of  our  condemnation,  and  that  the  rigliteous- 
ness  of  Christ,  as  something  not  subjectively  ours,  is  the  ground 
of  our  justification.  But  if  the  j)rinciple  above  stated  be  true, 
it  would  necessarily  follow,  (1.)  if  God  can  not  regard  and  treat 
men  otherwise  than  according  to  their  personal  character,  or  sub- 
jective state,  then  Christ  did  not  bear  our  sins,  nor  are  we  treated 
as  righteous  on  the  ground  of  his  righteousness,  L  c,  there  can 


246  BIN. 

be  no  true  atonement ;  or  (2.)  Christ,  in  virtue  of  his  community 
of  nature  with  us,  was  personally  criminal,  in  the  moral  sense  of 
the  word,  and  for  all  the  sins  committed  in  that  nature  ;  and  we, 
in  virtue  of  our  union  with  him,  are  personally  and  subjectively 
righteous.  Our  participation  of  Christ's  righteousness  is  declared 
by  Scrii)ture  to  be  analogous  to  our  participation  of  Adam's  sin. 
If,  therefore,  we  sinned  Adam's  sin,  we  wrought  Christ's  righte- 
ousness. If  we  are  condemned  for  Adam's  sin,  because  that  sin 
determined  and  constituted  our  moral  character,  then  we  are  jus- 
tified for  Christ's  righteousness,  because  it  constituted  our  moral 
character.  The  believer,  hence,  has  no  ground  of  confidence  beyond 
his  own  personal  holiness. — Dr.  Hodge,  Bib.  Eep.,  April,  1860. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 


ORIGINAL     SIN, 


1.  How  is  original  sin  to  he  defined  ? 

See  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  VI.,  L.  Cat.,  questions  25, 
26,  S.  Cat.,  question  18. 

The  phrase,  original  sin,  is  used  sometimes  to  include  the 
judicial  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  as  well  as  the 
hereditary  moral  corruption,  common  to  all  his  descendants, 
which  is  one  of  the  consequences  of  that  imputation.  More 
strictly,  however,  the  phrase  original  sin  designates  only  the 
hereditary  moral  corruption  common  to  all  men  from  birth. 

In  the  definition  of  this  doctrine  we  deny — 

1st.  That  this  corruption  is  in  any  sense  physical,  that  it  in- 
heres in  the  essence  of  the  soul,  or  in  any  of  its  natural  faculties 
as  such. 

2d.  That  it  consists  primarily  in  the  mere  supremacy  of  the 
sensual  part  of  our  nature.  It  is  a  depraved  habit  or  bias  of 
will. 

3d.  That  it  consists  solely  in  the  absence  of  holy  dispositions, 
because,  from  the  inherent  activity  of  the  soul,  sin  exhibits  itself 
from  the  beginning  in  the  way  of  a  positive  proneness  to  evil. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  affirm — 

1st.  That  original  sin  is  purely  moral,  being  the  innate 
proneness  of  the  will  to  evil. 

2d.  That  having  its  seat  in  the  will  averse  to  the  holy  law 
of  God,  it  biasses  the  understanding,  and  thus  deceives  the  con- 
science, leads  to  erroneous  moral  judgments,  to  blindness  of  mind, 
to  deficient  and  perverted  sensibility  in  relation  to  moral  objects, 
to  the  inordinate  action  of  the  sensuous  nature,  and  thus  to  cor- 
ruption of  the  entire  soul. 

3d.  Thus  it  presents  two  aspects  :  (1.)  The  loss  of  the  original 


248  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

righteous  habit  of  will.     (2  )  The  presence  of  a  positively  un- 
righteous habit. 

4th.  Yet  from  the  fact  that  this  innate  depravity  does  em- 
brace a  positive  disposition  to  evil,  it  does  not  follow  that  a  posi- 
tive evil  quality  has  been  infused  into  the  soul.  BecausCj  from 
the  e'ssentially  active  nature  of  the  soul,  and  from  the  esential 
nature  of  virtue,  as  that  which  obliges  the  will,  it  evidently  fol- 
lows that  moral  indifference  is  impossible;  and  so  that  depravity, 
which  President  Edwards  says  "  comes  from  a  defective  or  privi- 
tive  cause,"  instantly  assumes  a  positive  form.  Not  to  love  God 
is  to  rebell  against  him,  not  to  obey  virtue  is  to  trample  it  under 
foot.  Self-love  soon  brings  us  to  fear,  then  to  hate  the  vindicator 
of  righteousness. — Edwards  on  "  Original  Sin,"  Part  IV.,  sec.  2. 

2.  Why  is  this  sin  called  original  ? 

Not  because  it  belongs  to  the  original  constitution  of  our 
nature  as  it  came  forth  from  the  hand  of  Grod,  but  because,  1st, 
it  is  derived  by  ordinary  generation  from  Adam,  the  original  root 
of  the  human  race ;  and,  2d,  it  is  the  inward  root  or  origin  of  all 
the  actual  sins  that  defile  our  lives. 

3.  now  inaij  it  he  i^roved  that  the  doctrine  of  original  sin 
does  not  involve  the  corruption  of  the  substance  of  the  soid  ? 

It  is  the  universal  judgment  of  men  that  there  are  in  the  soul, 
besides  its  essence  and  its  natural  faculties,  certain  habits,  innate 
or  acquired,  which  qualify  the  action  of  those  faculties,  and  con- 
stitute the  character  of  the  man.  Those  habits,  or  inherent  dispo- 
sitions which  determine  the  affections  and  desires  of  the  will,  gov- 
ern a  man's  actions,  and,  when  good,  are  the  subjects  of  moral 
approbation,  and,  when  evil,  the  subjects  of  moral  disapprobation 
on  the  part  of  all  men.  An  innate  moral  habit  of  soul,  e.  g., 
original  sin,  is  no  more  a  physical  corruption  than  any  acquired 
habit,  intellectual  or  moral,  is  a  physical  change. 

Besides  this,  the  Scriptures  distinguish  between  the  sin  and 
the  agent  in  a  Avay  which  proves  that  the  sinful  habit  is  not  some- 
thing consubstantial  with  the  sinner,  Kom.  vii.,  17 ;  "  sin  that 
dwelleth  in  me,"  Heb.  xii.,  1,  etc. 

4.  How  can  it  he  shown  that  original  sin  does  not  consist  m 


NOT    DISEASE.  249 

disease,  or  merely  in  the  supremacy  of  the  sensuous  part  of  our 
nature  ? 

While  it  is  true  that  many  sins  have  their  occasions  in  the 
inordinate  appetites  of  the  body,  yet  it  is  evident  the  original  or 
root  of  sin  can  not  be  in  them — 

1st.  From  the  very  nature  of  sin  it  must  have  its  seat  in  the 
moral  state  of  the  voluntary  principle.  Disease,  or  any  form  of 
physical  disorder,  is  not  voluntary,  and  therefore  not  an  element 
of  moral  responsibility.  It  is,  moreover,  the  obligation  of  the 
will  to  regulate  the  lower  sensuous  nature,  and  sin  must  originate 
in  the  failure  of  those  moral  affections  which  would  have  been 
supreme  if  they  still  continued  to  reign  in  the  will. 

2d.  From  the  fact  that  the  most  heinous  sins  are  destitute 
of  any  sensuous  element,  e,  g.,  pride,  anger,  malice,  and  aver- 
sion FROM  God, 

5.  Hoto  can  it  be  proved  that  this  innate  disposition  or  habit 
of  soul,  which  leads  to  sinful  action,  is  itself  sin  ? 

1st.  This  innate  habit  of  soul  is  a  state  of  the  will,  and  it  is 
an  ultimate  principle  that  all  the  states  as  well  as  acts  of  the  will 
related  to  the  law  of  conscience  are  moral,  i.  e.,  either  virtuous  or 
vicious. — See  above.  Chapter  XIV.,  questions  9  and  10. 

2d.  These  permanent  habits  or  states  of  the  will  constitute 
the  moral  character  of  the  agent,  which  all  men  regard  as  the 
proper  subject  of  praise  or  blame. 

3d.  This  inherent  disposition  to  sinful  action  is  called  "  sin" 
in  Scripture,  Eom.  vi.,  12,  14,  17  ;  vii.,  5-17.  It  is  called  "flesh" 
as  opposed  to  "  spiritual,"  Gal.  v.,  17,  24  ;  also  "  lust,"  James  i., 
14,  15  ;  and  "  old  Adam"  and  "body  of  sin,"  Eom.  vi.,  6  ;  also 
"ignorance,"  "blindness  of  heart,"  "alienation  from  the  life  of 
God,"  and  a  condition  of  "  being  past  feeling,"  Eph.  iv.,  18,  19. 

6.  Hoto  can  it  be  shoion  that  original  sin  does  not  consist  sim- 
ply in  the  luant  of  original  righteousness  ? 

1st.  It  follows  from  the  inherent  activity  of  the  human  soul, 
and  from  the  inherently  obliging  power  of  moral  right  that  the 
absence  of  right  dispositions  immediately  leads  to  the  formation 
of  positively  sinful  dispositions.     Not  to  love  God  is  to  hate  him, 


250  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

not  to  obey  him  is  to  disobey.  Disobedience  leads  to  fear,  to 
falsehood,  and  to  every  form  of  sin. — See  above,  question  1. 

2d.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  innate  depravity  exhibits  its  positive 
character  by  giving  birth  to  sins,  involving  positive  viciousnes  sin 
the  earliest  stages  of  accountable  agency  as  pride,  malice,  etc. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  assign  it  a  positive  character,  when  they 
apply  to  it  such  terms  as  "flesh,"  "concupiscence,"  "old  man," 
" law  in  the  members,"  "body  of  sin,"  "  body  of  death,"  "sin 
taking  occasion,"  "  deceived  me,"  and  "  wrought  all  manner  of 
concupiscence." — Rom.  vii. 

7.  How  may  it  he  sJiown  that  it  affects  the  entire  man  ? 

Original  sin  has  its  seat  in  the  will,  and  primarily  consists  in 
that  proneness  to  unlawful  dispositions  and  affections  which  is 
the  innate  habit  of  the  human  soul.  But  the  several  faculties 
of  the  human  soul  are  not  separate  agents.  The  one  soul  acts  in 
each  function  as  an  indivisible  agent,  its  several  faculties  or  powers 
after  their  kind  mutually  qualifying  one  another.  AVhen  the 
soul  is  engaged  in  understanding  an  object,  or  an  aspect  of  any 
object,  e.  g.,  mathematics,  with  which  its  affections  are  not  con- 
cerned, then  its  action  has  no  moral  element.  But  when  it  is  en- 
gaged in  understanding  an  object  with  respect  to  which  its  de- 
praved affections  are  perversely  interested,  its  action  must  be 
biased.  The  consequence,  therefore,  of  the  sinful  bias  of  the  will 
in  its  controling  influence  over  the  exercises  of  the  soul,  in  all  its 
functions,  will  be — 

1st.  The  understanding,  biased  by  the  perverted  affections, 
acting  concuiTently  with  the  moral  sense  in  forming  moral  judg- 
ments, will  lead  to  eiToneous  judgments,  to  a  deceiving  conscience, 
and  to  general  "  blindness  of  mind"  as  to  moral  subjects. 

2d.  The  emotions  and  sensibilities  which  accompany  the  judg- 
ments of  conscience  in  approving  the  good  and  in  condemning  the 
wrong,  by  repeated  outrage  and  neglect,  will  be  rendered  less 
lively,  and  thus  lead  to  a  seared  conscience,  and  general  moral 
insensibility. 

3d.  In  a  continued  course  of  sinful  action  the  memory  will 
become  deflled  with  its  stores  of  corrupt  experiences,  from  which 
the  imagination  also  must  draw  its  materials. 

4th.  The  body  in  its  turn  will  be  corrupted.     (1.)  Its  natural 


TOTAL    DEPRAVITY.  251 

appetites  will  become  inordinate  in  the  absence  of  proper  control. 
(2.)  Its  active  powers  will  be  used  as  "  instruments  of  unrighte- 
ousness unto  sin."  . 

5th.  The  Scriptures  teach  (1.)  that  the  understanding  of  the 
"  natural  man"  is  depraved  as  well  as  his  affections,  1  Cor.  ii., 
14  ;  2  Cor.  iv.,  4  ;  Eph.  iv.,  18  ;  Col.  i.,  21.  (2.)  That  regener- 
ation involves  illumination  as  well  as  renewal  of  the  heart,  Acts 
xxvi.,  18  ;  Eph.  i.,  18  ;  v.,  8  ;  1  Pet.  ii.,  9.  (3.)  That  truth  ad- 
dressed to  the  understanding  is  the  great  instrument  of  the  Spirit 
in  regeneration  and  sanctification,  John  xvii.,  17;  James  i.,  18. 

8.  What  is  meaiit  by  the  affirmation  that  man  by  nature  is 
totally  depraved  ? 

By  this  orthodox  phrase  it  is  not  to  be  understood,  1st, 
that  the  depraved  man  has  not  a  conscience.  The  virtuousness 
of  an  agent  does  not  consist  in  his  having  a  conscience,  but  in  the 
conformity  of  the  dispositions  and  aftections  of  his  will  to  the  law 
of  which  conscience  is  the  organ.  Even  the  de"\als  and  lost  souls 
retain  their  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  and  those  vindicatory  emo- 
tions with  which  conscience  is  armed. 

Or,  2d,  that  unregenerate  men,  possessing  a  natural  con- 
science, do  not  often  admire  virtuous  character  and  actions  in 
others. 

Or,  3d,  that  they  are  incapable  of  disinterested  affections  and 
actions  in  their  various  relations  with  their  fellow-men. 

Or,  4th,  that  any  man  is  as  thoroughly  depraved  as  it  is  pos- 
sible for  him  to  become,  or  that  each  man  has  a  disposition  in- 
clined to  every  form  of  sin. 

But  it  is  meant,  1st.  That  virtue  consisting  in  the  con- 
formity of  the  dispositions  of  the  will  with  the  law  of  God,  and  the 
very  soul  of  virtue  consisting  in  the  allegiance  of  the  soul  to  God, 
every  man  by  nature  is  totally  alienated  in  his  governing  dispo- 
sition from  God,  and  consequently  his  every  act,  whether  morally 
indifferent,  or  conformed  to  subordinate  principles  of  right,  is 
vitiated  by  the  condition  of  the  agent  as  a  rebel. 

2d.  That  this  state  of  will  leads  to  a  schism  in  the  soul,  and 
to  the  moral  perversion  of  all  the  faculties  of  soul  and  body  (see 
preceding  question.) 

3d.  The  tendency  of  this  condition  is  to  further  corruption  in 


252  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

endless  progression  in  every  department  of  our  nature,  and  this 
deterioration  would,  in  every  case,  be  incalculably  more  rapid  than 
it  is,  if  it  were  not  for  the  supernatural  restraints  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

4tli.  There  remains  no  recuperative  element  in  the  soul.  Man 
can  only  and  for  ever  become  worse  without  a  miraculous  recre- 
ation. 

9.  What  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  may  he  derived 
from  the  history  of  the  Fall  ? 

God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  and  pronounced  him  as  a 
moral  agent  to  be  very  good.  He  threatened  him  with  death  in 
the  very  day  that  he  should  eat  the  forbidden  fruit,  and  only  in 
the  sense  of  spiritual  death  was  that  threat  literally  fulfilled. 
The  spiritual  hfe  of  man  depends  upon  communion  with  God  ; 
but  God  drove  him  at  once  forth  in  anger  from  his  presence. 
Consequently  the  present  spiritual  state  of  man  is  declared  to  be 
"  death,"  the  very  penalty  threatened. — Eph.  ii.,  1 ;  1  John  iii.,  14. 

10.  What  is  the  account  which  the  Scriptures  give  of  human 
nature,  and  hoiv  can  the  existence  of  an  innate  hereditary  deprav- 
ity be  thence  inferred  ? 

The  Scriptures  represent  all  men  as  totally  alienated  from 
God,  and  morally  depraved  in  their  understandings,  hearts,  wills, 
consciences,  bodies  and  actions. — Eom.  iii.,  10-23  ;  viii.,  7  ;  Job 
xiv.,  4;  XV.,  14;  Gen.  vi.,  5;  viii.,  21 ;  Matt,  xv.,  19;  Jer.  xvii., 
9  ;  Is.  i.,  5,  6.  This  depravity  of  man  is  declared  to  be,  1st,  of 
the  act,  2d,  of  the  heart,  3d,  from  birth  and  by  nature,  4th,  of 
all  men  without  exception. — Ps.  li,,  5  ;  John  iii.,  6  ;  Eph.  ii.,  3  ; 
Ps.  Iviii.,  3. 

11.  State  the  evidence  for  the  truth  of  this  doctrine  afforded 
by  Kom.  v.,  12-21. 

Paul  here  proves  that  the  guilt,  legal  obligation  to  suffer  the 
penalty,  of  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  us,  by  the  unquestionable 
fact  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  which  Adam  broke  has  been  in- 
flicted upon  all.  But  that  penalty  was  all  penal  evil,  death  phy- 
sical, spiritual,  eternal.     Original  sin,  therefore,  together  wdth 


ESTABLISHED   BY    FACT.  253 

natural  death,  is  in  this  passage  assumed  as  an  undeniable  fact, 
upon  which  the  apostle  oonstructs  his  argument  for  the  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  sin. 

12.  How  is  the  truth  of  this  doctrine  established  by  the  fact 
of  the  general  prevalence  of  sin  ? 

All  men,  under  all  circumstances,  in  every  age  of  the  world, 
and  under  whatever  educational  influences  they  may  be  brought 
up,  begin  to  sin  uniformly  as  soon  as  they  enter  upon  moral 
agency.  A  universal  effect  must  have  a  universal  cause.  Just 
as  we  judge  that  man  is  by  nature  an  intelligence,  because  the 
actions  of  all  men  involve  an  element  of  intelligence,  so  we  as 
certainly  judge  that  man  is  by  nature  depraved,  because  all  men 
act  sinfully. 

13.  If  Adam  sinned,  though  free  from  any  corruption  of 
nature,  how  does  the  fact  that  his  posterity  sin  prove  that  their 
nature  is  corrupt  ? 

The  fact  that  Adam  sinned  proves  that  a  moral  agent  may  be 
at  once  sinless  and  fallible,  and  that  such  a  being,  left  to  himself, 
may  sin,  but  with  respect  to  his  posterity  the  question  is,  what 
is  the  universal  and  uniform  cause  that  every  individual  always 
certainly  begins  to  sin  as  soon  as  he  begins  to  act  as  a  moral 
agent  ?  The  question  in  the  one  case  is.  How  coidd  such  an  one 
sin  ?  but  in  the  other,  Why  do  all  certainly  sin  from  the  begin- 
ning ? 

14.  By  what  other  objections  do  Pelagians  and  others  attempt 
to  avoid  the  force  of  the  argument  from  the  universality  of  sin  ? 

Ist.  Those  who  maintain  that  the  liberty  of  indifference  is 
essential  to  responsible  agency,  and  that  volitions  are  not  deter- 
mined by  the  precedent  moral  state  of  the  mind,  attribute  all  sin- 
ful actions  to  the  fact  that  the  will  of  man  is  unconditioned,  and 
insist  that  his  acting  as  he  acts  is  an  ultimate  fact. 

In  answer,  we  acknowledge  that  a  man  always  wills  as  he 
pleases,  but  the  question  is.  Why  does  he  alioays  certainly  please 
to  ivill  larong  ?  An  indifferent  cause  can  not  account  for  a  uni- 
form fact.     The  doctrine  of  original  sin  merely  assigns  the  de- 


254  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

pravcd  character  of  the  will  itself  as  the  uniform  cause  of  the  uni- 
form fact. 

2d.  Others  attempt  to  explain  the  facts  by  the  universal  influ- 
ence of  sinful  example. 

We  answer  :  (1.)  Children  unifonnly  manifest  depraved  dis- 
positions at  too  early  a  period  to  admit  of  that  sin  being  ration- 
ally attributed  to  the  influence  of  example.  (2.)  Children  mani- 
fest depraved  dispositions  who  have  been  brought  up  from  birth 
in  contact  with  such  influences  only  as  would  incline  them  to 
holiness, 

3d.  Others^  again,  attempt  to  explain  the  facts  by  referring 
to  the  natural  order  in  the  development  of  our  faculties,  e.  g.,  first 
the  animal,  then  the  intellectual,  then  the  moral :  thus  the  lower, 
by  anticipating,  subverts  the  higher. 

For  answer,  see  above,  question  4.  Besides,  while  this  is  an 
imperfect  explanation,  it  is  yet  a  virtual  admission  of  the  fact  of 
innate  hereditary  depravity.  Such  an  order  of  development, 
leading  to  such  uniform  consequences,  is  itself  a  total  corruption 
of  nature. 

15.  What  argument  for  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  may  be 
derived  from  the  universality  of  death  ? 

The  penalty  of  the  law  was  death,  including  death  spiritual, 
physical,  and  moral.  Physical  death  is  universal  ;  eternal  death, 
temporarily  suspended  for  Christ's  sake,  is  denounced  upon  all  the 
impenitent.  As  one  part  of  the  penalty  has  taken  eftect,  even 
upon  infants,  who  have  never  been  guilty  of  actual  transgression, 
we  must  believe  the  other  part  to  have  taken  efiect  likewise. 
Brutes,  who  also  suffer  and  die,  are  not  moral  agents,  nor  were  they 
ever  embraced  in  a  covenant  of  life,  and  therefore  their  case,  al- 
though it  has  its  own  peculiar  difficulties,  is  not  analogous  to  that 
of  man.  Geology  affirms  that  brutes  suffered  and  died  in  suc- 
cessive generations  before  the  creation  and  ai)Ostacy  of  man. 
This  is  at  present  one  of  the  unsolved  questions  of  God's  provi- 
dence.— See  Hugh  Miller's  Testimonies  of  the  Rocks. 

16.  Hoio  may  it  be  proved  by  what  the  Scriptures  say  con- 
cerning regeneration  ? 


PKOVED  BY  THE  NECESSITY  FOR  REDEMPTION.     255 

The  Scriptures  declare— 

1st.  That  regeneration  is  a  radical  change  of  the  moral  char- 
acter, wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  exercise  of  supernatural 
power.  It  is  called  "  a  new  creation  ;"  the  regenerated  are  called 
"God's  workmanship,  created  unto  good  works,"  etc. — Ezek. 
xxxvi.,  26  ;  Eph.  i.,  19  ;  ii.,  5,  10 ;  iv.,  24 ;  1  Pet.  i.,  23  ;  James 
i.,  18. 

2d.  Kegeneration  is  declared  to  be  necessary  absolutely  and 
universally. — John  iii.,  3  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  17. 

17.  Hoiu  may  it  be  proved  from  what  the  Scriptures  say  of 

redemption  ? 

The  Scriptures  assert  of  redemption — 

1st.  As  to  its  nature,  that  the  design  and  effect  of  Christ's 
sacrifice  is  to  deliver,  by  means  of  an  atonement,  all  his  people 
from  the  joozyer  as  well  as  from  the  guilt  of  sin. — Eph.  v.,  25-27; 
Titus  ii.,  14 ;  Heb.  ix.,  12-14  ;  xiii.,  12. 

2d.  As  to  its  necessity,  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  for 
all — for  infants  who  never  have  committed  actual  sin,  as  well  as 
for  adults. — Matt,  xix.,  14  :  Rev.  i.,  5  ;  v.,  9. 

Some  have  essayed  to  answer,  that  Christ  only  redeemed  in- 
fants from  the  "liability  to  sin."  But  redemption  being  an 
atonement  by  blood,  the  "just  for  the  unjust,"  if  infants  be  not 
sinners  they  can  not  be  redeemed.  A  sinless  liability  to  sin  is 
only  a  misfortune,  and  can  admit  of  no  redemption. — See  Dr. 
Taylor's  "  Concio  ad  Clerum,"  (New  Haven,  1828,)  pp.  24,  25 ; 
also  Harvey's  Review  of  the  same,  (Hartford,  1829,)  p.  19. 

18.  State  the  evidetice  afforded  by  infant  baptism. 

Baptism,  as  circumcision,  is  an  outward  rite,  signifying  the  in- 
ward grace  of  spiritual  regeneration  and  purification. — Mark  i.,  4; 
John  iii.,  5  ;  Titus  iii.,  5  ;  Deut.  x.,  16  ;  Rom.  ii.,  28,  29.  Both 
of  these  rites  were  designed  to  be  applied  to  infants.  The  appli- 
cation of  the  sign  would  be  both  senseless  and  profane  if  infants 
did  not  need,  and  were  not  capable  of  the  thing  signified. 

19.  What  is  the  objection  that  many  present  to  this  doctrine^ 
drawn  from  their  view  of  the  nature  of  sin  ? 

The  Pelagians  hold  that  sin  consists  alone  in  acts  of  the  wiU 


256  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

transgressing  known  law,  and  that  it  is  essential  to  free  agency 
that  a  man  is  always  as  free  to  cease  from  sinning  as  to  continue 
to  sin,  and  consequently  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  inherent 
moral  depravity,  innate  or  acquired. 

Dr.  Nathaniel  W.  Taylor,  of  New  Haven,  the  prince  of 
American  new  school  theology,  taught  that  sin  consists  solely  in 
acts  of  the  will.  That  "  original  sin  is  man's  own  act,  consisting 
in  a  free  choice  of  some  object  rather  than  God  as  his  chief  good." 
He  includes  in  this  definition  the  permanent,  governing  prefer- 
ence of  the  wUl,  which  determines  sj^ccial  and  transient  acts  of 
choice  ;  which  preference  is  formed  by  each  human  being  as  soon 
as  he  becomes  a  moral  agent,  and  is  uniformly  a  preference  of 
some  lesser  good  in  place  of  God.  He  maintains  also  that  the 
nature  of  man,  in  the  condition  in  which  it  comes  into  being,  in 
consequence  of  Adam's  fall,  is  the  occasion,  not  the  cause,  of  all 
men  invariably  making  a  wrong  moral  preference,  and  conse- 
quently original  sin  is  by  nature  in  the  sense  that  the  will  enacts 
it  freely  though  uniformly  as  occasioned  by  nature,  yet  that  the 
nature  itself,  or  its  inherent  tendency  to  occasion  sin,  is  not  itself 
sin,  or  ill-deserving. — See  "Concio  ad  Clerum,"  New  Haven,  1828, 
and  Harvey's  Eeview  thereof. 

20.  Hoiv  may  thei?'  objections  be  answered  ? 

The  Pelagian  doctrine  is  disproved  by  the  true  theory  of  moral 
agency,  (see  below.  Chapter  XVIII.,);  by  the  universal  judgment 
of  men  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  moral  character,  properly  the 
object  of  praise  or  blame,  which  determines  the  action,  and  from 
which  any  action  derives  all  the  moral  quality  it  possesses;  by  all 
the  Scriptures  teach  of  depravity  of  heart  as  well  as  act,  from  birth 
and  by  nature  ;  and  by  all  that  they  teach  also  with  respect  to 
man's  inabilitj^  to  change  himself,  and  of  the  nature  and  neces- 
sity of  the  new  birth. — See  Chapter  XVIII.,  questions  21-25. 

The  semi-Pelagian  theory  of  Dr.  Taylor  may  be  disproved  by 
the  facts,  1st.  That  infants  die,  are  baptized,  and  must  be  re- 
deemed before  the  commencement  of  moral  agency. — See  above, 
questions  16-19.  2d.  The  Scriptures  declare  this  corruption  to  be 
hereditar}'  and  innate. — Ps.  li.,  5  ;  Iviii.,  3  ;  John  iii.,  6  ;  Eph. 
ii.,  3.  3d.  The  Scriptures  call  this  inherent  principle  or  state  of 
.the  iieart  sin.— Kom.  vi.,  12,  17  ;  vii.,  5,  17  ;  Eph.  iv.,  17,  18  ; 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  257 

John  viii.,  34.  If  men  are  "  servants  of  sin,"  it  follows  that  this 
principle,  although  in  the  will,  lies  back  of  and  is  su]3erior  to  the 
mere  volitional  faculty. 

21.  If  God  is  the  author  of  our  nature,  and  our  nature  is 
sinful,  how  can  loe  avoid  the  conclusion  that  God  is  the  author 
of  sin  ? 

That  conclusion  would  be  unavoidable  if,  1st,  sin  was  an 
essential  element  of  our  nature,  or  if,  2d,  it  inhered  in  that  na- 
ture originally,  as  it  came  from  God. 

But  we  know,  1st,  that  sin  originated  in  the  free  act  of  man, 
created  holy,  yet  fallible  ;  2d,  that  entire  corruption  of  nature 
sprang  from  that  sin  ;  and,  3d,  that  in  consequence  of  sin  God 
has  justly  withdrawn  the  conservative  influences  of  his  Holy 
Spirit,  and  left  men  to  the  natural  and  penal  consequences  of 
their  sin. — See  Calvin's  Instit.,  Lib.  II.,  Chap.  I.,  sec.  6  and  11. 

22.  Hoio  can  this  doctrine  he  reconciled  with  the  liberty  of 
man  and  his  responsibility  for  his  acts  ? 

1st.  Consciousness  affirms  that  a  man  is  always  responsible 
for  his  free  actions,  and  that  his  act  is  always  free  when  he  wills 
as,  upon  the  whole,  he  prefers  to  will.  2d.  Original  sin  consists 
in  corrupt  dispositions,  and,  therefore,  in  every  sin  a  man  acts 
freely,  because  he  acts  precisely  as  he  is  disposed  to  act.  3d. 
Consciousness  affirms  that  inability  is  not  inconsistent  with  re- 
sponsibility. The  inherent  habit  or  disposition  of  the  will  deter- 
mines his  action,  but  no  man,  by  a  mere  choice  or  volition,  can 
change  his  disposition. — See  Chap.  XVIII.,  questions  4  and  25. 

23.  How  is  this  corruption  of  nature  propagated  ? 

Several  theories  have  been  held  upon  this  subject.  1st.  The 
Manichaean  doctrine  was,  that  matter,  eternal  and  self-existent, 
is  inherently  corrupt  and  corrupting  ;  all  souls,  therefore,  being 
severally  created  pure,  become  vitiated  from  connection  with  their 
bodies. — Mosheim,  Book  I.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  V. 

2d.  Some  have  supposed  that  all  human  souls  were  created 
cotemporancously  with  Adam,  having  since  remained  in  a  state 
of  unconsciousness  to  the  moment  of  their  individual  births,  and 


258  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

that,  by  some  law  of  connection,  they  became  depraved  together 
with  him. 

3d.  The  doctrine  designated  "  ex  traduce"  supposes  that,  by 
some  law  of  spiritual  generation,  the  soul  of  the  child  is  propa- 
gated by,  and  derives  its  qualities  from  the  souls  of  its  parents. 
This  view  is  now  universally  abandoned.  Yet  it  is  evident  that 
the  soul  of  the  cliild  is  created  after  the  analogy  of  the  souls  of 
its  parents,  i.  e.,  the  child  is. like  the  parent,  mentally  and  moral- 
ly, as  well  as  physically.  And  surely  the  soul  of  the  child  deter- 
mines the  individual  idiosyncrasies  of  the  body  in  the  womb,  not 
the  body  of  the  soul ;  as  appears  evident  from  the  universally 
recognized  truth  of  physiognomy,  etc.,  etc. 

4th.  The  sufficient  answer  is  that  the  moral  health  of  the  soul 
depends  upon  its  communion  with  God.  But,  because  of  God's 
displeasure  with  the  race,  he  creates  every  infant  soul  in  a  state 
judicially  excluded  from  that  fellowship,  and  hence  the  tendency 
to  sin. — Conf  Faith,  Chap.  VI.,  sec.  3  ;  Gen.  v.,  3  ;  Ps.  Ivii.,  5 ; 
Job  xiv.,  4  ;  xv.,  14  ;  John  iii.,  6. 

24.  In  ivliat  sense  may  sin  he  the  punishment  of  sin  ? 

1st.  In  the  way  of  natural  consequence  (1.)  in  the  interior 
working  of  the  soul  itself,  in  the  derangement  of  its  powers  ;  (2.) 
in  the  entangled  relations  of  the  sinner  with  God  anel  his  fellowmen. 

2d.  In  the  way  of  judicial  abandonment.  Because  of  sin  God 
withdraws  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  further  sin  is  the  consequence. — 
Kom.  i.,  24-28. 

25.  What  distinction  do  the  Romanists  make  between  mortal 
and  venial  sins  ? 

By  mortal  sins  they  mean  those  that  tm*n  away  the  soul  from 
God,  and  forfeit  baptismal  grace.  By  venial  sins  they  mean  those 
which  only  impede  the  course  of  the  soul  to  God. 

The  objections  are,  1st.  This  distinction  is  never  made  in  the 
Scriptures.  2d.  Except  for  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  every  sin  is 
mortal. — James  ii.,  10  ;  Gal.  iii.,  10. 

26.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  ? 


SIN   AGAINST   THE   HOLY   GHOST.  259 

See  Matt,  xii.,  31,  32  ;  Mark  iii.,  29,  30 ;  Heb.  vi.,  4-6  ;  x., 
26,  27  ;  1  John,  v.,  16. 

These  passages  appear  to  teach  that  this  sin  consists  in  the 
malicious  rejection  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  of  the  testimony 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  against  evidence  and  conviction.  It  is  called 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  because  he  is  immediately  present 
in  the  heart  of  the  sinner,  and  his  testimony  and  influence  is 
directly  rejected  and  contemptuously  resisted.  It  is  unpardon- 
able, not  because  its  guilt  transcends  the  merit  of  Christ,  or  the 
state  of  the  sinner  transcends  the  renewing  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  but  because  it  consists  in  the  final  rejection  of  these,  and 
because  at  this  limit  God  has  sovereignly  staid  his  grace. 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

THE  .DOCTRINE   OF   THE  WILL   AND   OF   HUMAN    INABILITY. 

1.  Is  free-agency  an  inalienable  attribute  of  the  human  soul, 
or  has  it  been  lost  by  sin  ? 

Like  conscience,  free  agency  is  an  essential  and  indestructible 
element  of  human  nature,  and  in  every  case  necessary  to  moral 
accountability.  Even  devils  and  lost  souls  are  as  free,  i.  e.,  vol- 
untary in  their  sin,  as  saints  in  their  holiness. — See  below,  ques- 
tion 4.  For  a  definition  of  the  essential  elements  of  free  agency, 
see  above,  Chap.  XIV.,  question  6. 

2.  WJiat  are  the  different  senses  in  which  the  word  will  is 
used  ? 

For  a  full  answer  see  above.  Chap.  XIV.,  question  3. 

3.  JVhen  is  a  man  said  to  be  free  in  willing  ? 

When  he  wills  in  conformity  with  his  prevailing  dispositions 
or  desires  at  the  time,  all  things  considered,  in  the  view  his  un- 
derstanding takes  of  the  case. 

A  man,  therefore,  always  is  free  in  willing,  and  can  never  will 
otherwise  than  as  free,  because  the  volition,  or  executive  action 
of  the  will  is  always  determined  by  the  man's  subjective  state  of 
desire  or  aversion,  and  therefore  is  always  free. 

4.  Do  not  the  Scriptures,  hoivever,  speak  of  man's  being  un- 
der the  bondage  of  corruption,  and  his  liberty  as  lost  ? 

As  above  shown,  a  man  is  always  free  in  every  responsible 
volition,  as  much  when  he  chooses,  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God 
and  conscience,  as  in  conformity  to  it.  In  the  case  of  unfaUen 
creatures,  and  of  regenerated  men,  however,  the  permanent  state 
of  the  will,  the  voluntary  affections  and  desires  (in  Scripture  Ian- 


DEFINITION  OF   MOTIVE.  261 

guage,  the  heart),  are  conformed  to  the  light  of  reason  and  the 
law  of  conscience  within,  and  to  the  law  of  God,  in  its  objective 
revelation.  There  are  no  conflicting  principles  then  within  the 
soul,  and  the  law  of  Grod,  instead  of  coercing  the  will  by  its  com- 
mands and  thi'eatenings,  is  spontaneously  obeyed.  This  is  "  the 
liberty  of  the  sons  of  God  ;"  and  the  law  becomes  the  "  royal 
law  of  liberty"  when  the  law  in  the  heart  of  the  subject  perfectly 
corresponds  with  the  law  of  the  moral  Governor. 

In  the  case  of  fallen  men  and  angels,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
reason  and  conscience,  and  God's  law,  are  opposed  by  the  govern- 
ing disj)ositions  of  the  will,  and  the  agent,  although  free,  because 
he  wills  as  he  chooses,  is  said  to  be  in  bondage  to  an  evil  nature, 
and  "  the  servant  of  sin,"  because  he  is  impelled  by  his  corrupt 
dispositions  to  choose  that  which  he  sees  and  feels  to  be  wrong 
and  injurious,  and  because  the  threatenings  of  God's  law  tend  to 
coerce  his  will  through  fear. — See  below,  questions  13  and  17. 

5.  What  are  the  tivo  senses  in  ivMcli  the  luord  motive,  as  in- 
Jiuencing  the  will,  is  used  ? 

1st.  A  motive  to  act  may  be  something  outside  the  soul  itself, 
as  the  value  of  money,  the  wishes  of  a  friend,  the  wisdom  or  folly, 
the  right  or  the  wrong  of  any  act  in  itself  considered,  or  the  ap- 
petites and  impulses  of  the  body.  In  this  sense  it  is  evident  that 
the  man  does  not  always  act  according  to  the  motive.  What 
may  attract  one  man  may  repel  another,  or  a  man  may  repel  the 
attraction  of  an  outward  motive  by  the  superior  force  of  some 
consideration  drawn  from  within  the  soul  itself.  So  that  the 
dictum  is  true,  "  The  man  makes  the  motive,  and  not  the  mo- 
tive the  man." 

2d.  A  motive  to  act  may  be  the  state  of  the  man's  own  mind, 
as  desire  or  aversion  in  view  of  the  outward  object,  or  motive  in 
the  first  sense.  This  internal  motive  evidently  must  sway  the 
volition,  and  as  clearly  it  can  not  in  the  least  interfere  with  the 
perfect  freedom  of  the  man  in  willing,  since  the  internal  motive 
is  only  the  man  himself  desiring,  or  the  reverse,  according  to  his 
own  disposition  or  character. 

6.  May  there  not  he  several  conflicting  desires,  or  internal 
motives,  in  the  mind  at  the  same  time,  and  in  such  a  case  how  ia 
the  loill  decided  ? 


262  FREE  AGENCY. 

There  are  often  several  conflicting  desires,  or  impelling  affec- 
tions in  the  mind  at  the  same  time,  in  which  case  the  strongest 
desire,  or  the  strongest  group  of  desires,  drawing  in  one  way,  de- 
termine the  volition.  That  which  is  strongest  proves  itself  to  be 
such  only  by  the  result,  and  not  by  the  intensity  of  the  feeling  it 
excites.  Some  of  these  internal  motives  are  very  vivid,  like  a 
thirst  for  vengeance,  and  others  calm,  as  a  sense  of  duty,  yet  often 
the  calm  motive  proves  itself  the  strongest,  and  draws  the  will 
its  own  way.  This  of  course  must  depend  upon  the  character  of 
the  agent.  It  is  this  inward  contest  of  opposite  principles  which 
constitutes  the  warfare  of  the  Christian  life.  It  is  the  same  ex- 
perience which  occasions  a  great  part  of  that  confusion  of  con- 
sciousness which  prevails  among  men  with  respect  to  the  problem 
of  the  will,  and  the  conditions  of  free  agency.  Man  often  acts 
asrainst  motives,  but  never  without  motive.  And  the  motive 
which  actually  determines  the  choice  in  a  given  case  may  ofteii 
be  the  least  clearly  defined  in  the  intellect,  and  the  least  vividly 
experienced  in  the  feelings.  Especially  in  sudden  surprizes,  and 
in  cases  of  trivial  concernment,  the  volition  is  constantly  deter- 
mined by  vague  impulses,  or  by  force  of  habit  almost  automati- 
cally. Yet  in  every  case,  if  the  whole  contents  of  the  mind,  at 
the  time  of  the  volition,  be  brought  up  into  distinct  consciousness, 
it  wiU  be  found  that  the  man  chose,  as  upon  the  whole  view  of 
the  case  presented  by  the  understanding  at  the  instant  he  desired 
to  choose. 

7.  What  is  the  distinction  between  a  transient  affection  or 
desire,  and  a  permanent  principle  or  dispositiooi  of  the  tvill  ? 
(  WiU  here  understood  in  the  luide  sense  of  the  term,  as  including 
the  phenomena  of  desire  as  ivell  as  of  volition.) 

See  above.  Chap.  XIV.,  question  4. 

8.  If  the  immediately  preceding  state  of  the  man  s  mind  cer- 
tainly determines  the  act  of  his  will,  hoio  can  that  act  he  truly 
free  if  certainly  determined  ? 

This  objection  rests  solely  upon  the  confusion  of  the  two  dis- 
tinct ideas  of  liberty  of  the  will  as  an  abstract  faculty,  and  lib- 
erty of  the  man  who  wills.  The  man  is  never  determined  to  will 
by  any  thing  without  himself     He  always  himself  freely  gives, 


CERTAINTY  CONSISTENT   "WITH   FREEDOM.  263 

according  to  his  own  cliaracter,  all  tlie  weight  to  the  external 
influences  which  bear  upon  him  that  they  ever  possess.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  mere  act  of  volition,  abstractly  con- 
sidered, is  determined  by  the  present  mental,  moral,  and  emo- 
tional state  of  the  man  at  the  moment  he  acts.  His  rational 
freedom,  indeed,  consists,  not  in  the  uncertainty  of  his  act,  but 
in  the  very  fact  that  his  whole  soul,  as  an  indivisible,  knowing, 
feeling,  moral  agent,  determines  his  own  action  as  it  pleases. 

9.  Prove  that  the  certainty  of  a  volition  is  in  no  degree  incon- 
sistent loith  the  liberty  of  the  agent  in  that  act. 

1st.  God,  Christ,  and  saints  in  glory,  are  all  eminently  free  in 
their  holy  choices  and  actions,  yet  nothing  can  be  more  certain 
than  that,  to  all  eternity,  they  shall  always  will  according  to 
righteousness. 

2d.  Man  is  a  free  agent,  yet  of  every  infant,  from  his  birth,  it 
is  absolutely  certain  that  if  he  lives  he  will  sin. 

3d.  God,  from  eternity,  foreknows  all  the  free  actions  of  men 
as  certain,  and  he  has  foreordained  them,  or  made  them  to  be 
certain.  In  prophecy  he  has  infallibly  foretold  many  of  them  as 
certain.  And  in  regeneration  his  people  are  made  "  his  work- 
manship created  unto  good  works,  which  God  has  before  ordained 
that  we  should  walk  in  them." 

4th.  Even  we,  if  we  thoroughly  understand  a  friend's  charac- 
ter, and  all  the  present  circumstances  under  which  he  acts,  are 
often  absolutely  certain  how  he  will  freely  act,  though  absent 
from  us.  This  is  the  foundation  of  all  human  faith,  and  hence 
of  all  human  society. 

10.  What  is  that  theory  of  moral  liberty,  styled  "  liberty  of 
indifference"  " self-determining  power  of  the  ivill"  ''^ power  of 
contrary  choice"  "  liberty  of  contingency"  etc.,  held  by  Armin- 
ians  and  others  ? 

This  theory  maintains  that  it  is  essentially  involved  in  the 
idea  of  free  agency,  Ist,  that  the  will  of  man  in  every  volition 
may  decide  in  opposition,  not  only  to  all  outward  inducements, 
but  equally  to  all  the  inward  judgments,  desires,  and  to  the  whole 
coexistent  inward  state  of  the  man  himself.  2d.  Tliat  man  is 
conscious  in  every  free  volition  that  he  might  have  willed  pre- 


264  FREE   AGENCY. 

cisely  the  opposite,  bis  outward  circumstances  and  his  entire 
inward  state  remaining  the  same.  3d.  That  every  free  voHtion 
is  contingent,  i.  e.,  imcertain,  until  the  event,  since  it  is  deter- 
mined by  nothing  but  the  bare  faculty  of  volition  on  the  part  of 
the  agent. — Hamilton's  Keid,  pp.  599 — 624. 

The  true  theory  of  moral  certainty,  on  the  other  hand,  is  that 
the  soul  is  a  unit ;  that  the  will  is  not  self-determined,  but  that 
man,  when  he  wills,  is  seli-determined  ;  and  that  his  volition  is 
certainly  determined  by  his  own  internal,  rational,  moral,  emo- 
tional state  at  the  time,  viewed  as  a  whole. 

In  opposition  to  the  former  theory,  and  in  favor  of  the  latter, 
we  argue — 1st.  That  the  character  of  the  agent  does  certainly 
determine  the  character  of  his  free  acts,  and  that  the  certainty  of 
an  act  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  liberty  of  the  agent  in  his  act. — 
See  below,  question  12. 

2d.  The  Christian  doctrines  of  the  divine  foreknowledge,  fore- 
ordination,  providence,  and  regeneration.  For  the  Scriptural  evi- 
dence of  these,  see  their  respective  chapters.  They  all  show  that 
the  volitions  of  men  are  neither  uncertain  or  indeterminate. 

3d.  We  agi-ee  with  the  advocates  of  the  opposite  theory  in 
maintaining  that  in  every  free  act  we  are  conscious  that  we  had 
power  to  perform  it,  or  not  to  perform  it,  as  we  chose.  "  But  we 
maintain  that  we  are  none  the  less  conscious  that  this  intimate 
conviction  that  we  had  power  not  to  perform  an  act  is  conditional. 
That  is,  we  are  conscious  that  the  act  might  have  been  otherwise, 
had  other  views  or  feelings  been  present  to  our  minds,  or  been  al- 
lowed their  due  weight.  A  man  can  not  prefer  against  his  prefer- 
ence, or  choose  against  his  choice.  A  man  may  have  one  prefer- 
ence at  one  time,  and  another  at  another.  He  may  have  various 
conflicting  feelings  or  principles  in  action  at  the  same  time,  but 
he  can  not  have  coexisting  opposite  preferences." 

4th.  The  theory  of  the  "  self-determining  power  of  the  will" 
regards  the  will,  or  the  mere  faculty  of  volition,  as  isolated  from 
the  other  faculties  of  the  soul,  as  an  independent  agent  within  an 
agent.  Now,  the  soul  is  a  unit.  Consciousness  and  Scripture 
alike  teach  us  that  man  is  the  free,  responsible  agent.  By  this 
dissociation  of  the  volitional  foculty  from  the  moral  dispositions 
and  desires  the  volitions  can  have  no  moral  character.  By  its 
dissociation  from  the  reason  the  volitions  can  have  no  rational 


CONDITIONS   OF   RESPONSIBILITY.  265 

character.  Since  they  are  not  determined  by  the  inward  state  of 
the  man  himself,  they  must  he  fortuitous,  and  beyond  his  control. 
He  can  not  be  free  if  his  will  is  independent  alike  of  his  head  and 
his  heart,  and  he  ought  not  to  be  held  responsible. — See  Bib.  Kep., 
January,  1857,  Art.  V. 

11.  What  are  the  essential  conditions  of  moral  responsi- 
bility ? 

See  above,  Chapter  XIV.,  question  7. 

12.  Why  is  a  man  responsible  for  his  outward  actions  ;  tvhy 
for  his  volitions  ;  why  for  his  affections  and  desires  ;  and  prove 
that  he  is  responsible  for  his  affections  ? 

"  A  man  is  responsible  for  his  outward  acts,  because  they  are 
determined  by  the  will ;  he  is  responsible  for  his  volitions,  be- 
cause they  are  determined  by  his  own  principles  and  feelings 
(desires)  ;  he  is  responsible  for  his  principles  and  feelings,  because 
of  their  inherent  nature  as  good  or  bad,  and  because  they  are 
his  own  and  constitute  his  character." — Bib.  Rep.,  January,  1857, 
p.  130. 

It  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture  and  the  universal  judgment  of 
men,  that  "  a  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasures  of  his  heart 
bringeth  forth  that  which  is  good,"  and  that  a  "  wicked  man 
out  of  the  evil  treasures  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth  that  which  is 
evil."  The  act  derives  its  moral  character  from  the  state  of  the 
heart  from  which  it  springs,  and  a  man  is  responsible  for  the 
moral  state  of  his  heart,  whether  that  state  be  innate,  formed  by 
regenerating  grace  or  acquired  by  himself,  because,  1st,  of  the 
obliging  nature  of  moral  right,  and  the  ill  desert  of  sin  ;  2d, 
because  a  man's  affections  and  desires  are  himself  loving  or 
refusing  that  which  is  right.  It  is  the  judgment  of  all,  that  a 
profane  or  malignant  man  is  to  be  reprobated,  no  matter  how  he 
became  so. 

13.  What  is  the  distinction  between  liberty  and  ability  ? 

Liberty  consists  in  the  power  of  the  agent  to  will  as  he  pleases, 
in  the  fact  that  the  volition  is  determined  only  by  the  character 
of  the  agent  willing.  Ability  consists  in  the  power  of  the  agent 
to  change  his   own   subjective   state,  to  make  himself  prefer 


266  FREE  AGENCY. 

■what  he  does  not  prefer,  and  to  act  in  a  given  case  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  coexistent  desires  and  preferences  of  the  agent's  own 
heart. 

Thus  man  is  as  truly  free  since  the  fall  as  before  it,  because 
he  wills  as  his  evil  heart  pleases.  But  he  has  lost  all  ability  to 
obey  the  law  of  God,  because  his  evil  heart  is  not  subject  to  that 
law,  neither  can  he  change  it. 

14.  But  may  not  an  unregenerate  man  truly  desire  to  obey 
the  law  of  God  ;  and,  if  so,  luliy  does  not  that  desire  control  his 
will  ? 

An  unregenerate  man  often  does  heartily  desire  to  avoid  the 
penalty  of  Grod's  law,  and  consequently,  through  fear  of  the  con- 
sequences of  his  sin,  may  be  said  to  desire  to  eradicate  the  preva- 
lent principle  of  sin  from  his  heart.  He  may  even,  as  a  matter 
of  taste  and  judgment,  desire  to  obey  the  law  of  God  in  certain 
particulars  wherein  that  law  does  not  directly  oppose  his  domi- 
nant dispositions.  But  no  unregenerate  man  can  love  holiness 
for  its  own  sake,  and  earnestly  desire  to  fulfill  the  whole  law  of 
God  in  the  spirit  as  well  as  the  letter  ;  for  if  he  did  so,  the  law 
in  his  case  would  be  fulfilled. 

15.  What  are  the  Pelagian  and  the  Arminian  theories  as  to 
the  ability  of  the  sinner  to  obey  the  commands  of  God  ? 

The  Pelagian  doctrine  is  that  it  is  the  essence  of  liberty  that 
the  sinner  is  as  free  to  cease  from  sin  as  to  continue  it.  That 
man  consequently  is  as  able  now  to  obey  God's  law  perfectly  as 
Adam  was  before  he  fell,  and  hence  that  regeneration  is  the  sin- 
ner's act  of  simply  ceasing  to  do  evil,  and  commencing  to  do  well. 

The  Arminian  view  is  that  man,  by  nature  and  of  himself, 
is  utterly  unable  to  change  his  own  depraved  heart,  or  to  obey 
the  law  of  God,  or  savingly  to  receive  the  gospel,  yet  that  God, 
for  Christ's  sake,  gives  to  every  man  sufficient  grace,  if  improved, 
to  enable  him  to  do  all  that  he  is  responsible  for  doing.  With- 
out gi-ace  no  man  has  ability  to  obey,  with  grace  every  man  has 
ability  either  to  obey  or  disobey. — Apol.  Conf.  Remonstr.,  p.  162.,  b. 

16.  What  distinction  is  intended  by  the  theological  terms 
natural  and  moral  ability  ? 


NATUKAL  AND   MORAL  ABILITY.  267 

By  natural  ability  was  intended  the  possession,  on  the  part  of 
every  responsible  moral  agent,  whether  holy  or  unholy,  of  all  the 
natural  faculties,  as  reason,  conscience,  free  will,  requisite  to  en- 
able him  to  obey  God's  law.  If  any  of  these  were  absent,  the  agent 
would  not  be  responsible. — Edwards  on  the  Will,  Part  I.,  sec.  4. 

By  moral  ability  was  intended  that  inherent  moral  condition 
of  these  faculties,  that  righteous  disposition  of  heart  requisite  to 
the  performance  of  duty.  , 

Although  these  terms  have  been  often  used  by  orthodox  writers 
in  a  sense  which  to  them  expressed  the  truth,  yet  they  have  often 
been  abused,  and  are  not  desirable.  It  is  evidently  an  abuse  of 
the  word  to  say  that  sinners  are  naturally  able,  but  morally  un- 
able to  obey  the  law  ;  for  that  can  be  no  ability  which  leaves  the 
sinner,  as  the  Scriptures  declare,  utterly  unable  either  to  think, 
feel  or  act  aright.  Besides  the  word  natural,  in  the  phrase 
"  natural  ability,"  is  used  in  an  unusual  sense,  as  opposite  to 
moral,  while  in  the  usual  sense  of  that  word  it  is  declared  in 
Scripture  that  man  is  by  nature,  i.  e.,  naturally,  a  child  of  wrath. 

17.  State  the  common  doctrine  of  the  church  as  to  the  inability 
of  the  sinner  to  obey  the  laio  of  God,  or  to  accept  the  gospel,  and 
state  hoiofar  it  is  natural  and  how  far  moral  ? 

All  men  possess  those  faculties  of  their  nature  essential  to 
constitute  them  rational,  and  moral,  and  free  agents,  and  there- 
fore all  that  is  necessary  to  render  them  responsible  for  their  obe- 
dience to  God's  law.  But  the  moral  state  of  these  faculties  is 
such,  because  of  the  perverted  dispositions  of  their  hearts,  that 
they  are  utterly  unable  either  to  will  or  to  do  what  the  law 
requires.  This  inability  is  "natural"  since  it  is  innate  and  consti- 
tutional. It  is  "  moral"  since  it  does  not  consist  either  in  disease, 
or  in  any  physical  defect  in  the  soul,  nor  merely  in  the  inordinate 
action  of  the  bodily  affections,  but  in  the  corrupt  character  of  the 
governing  dispositions  of  the  heart.  This  inability  is  total,  and, 
as  tar  as  human  strength  goes,  irremediable. — Confession  of  Faith, 
Chap.  IX.,  sec.  3.  Article  X.  of  Church  of  England,  and  Article 
XVIII.  of  Augsburg  Conf. 

18.  Prove  the  fact  of  this  inability  from  Scripture. 
Jer.xiii.,23;  John  vi.  44, 65;  xv.,  5;  Kom.  ix.,  16;  1  Cor.  ii.,  14. 


268  ABILITY. 

19.  Soio  may  the  fact  of  this  inability  he  proved  from  our 
consciousness  and  experience  ? 

Consciousness  teaches  us  that  while  the  dispositions  and  de- 
sires determine  the  volitions,  no  volition  can  change  the  character 
of  the  governing  dispositions  and  desires  of  our  hearts  themselves. 
Our  experience  teaches  us  that  while  many  men  have,  for  outside 
considerations  of  self-interest,  desired  to  serve  God,  and  there- 
fore have  endeavored  to  change  their  yiherent  evil  dispositions, 
they  have  always  entirely  failed  in  such  effort,  A  specific  evil 
habit  may  he  abandoned,  but  the  disposition  to  sin  remains,  and 
always  breaks  forth  with  renewed  violence  under  some  other  form. 

20.  How  may  it  he  proved  from  lohat  the  Scriptures  say 
concerning  human  depravity,  and  the  necessity  of  a  divine  influ- 
ence in  order  to  salvation  ? 

The  Scriptures  declare  that  by  nature  all  men,  without  excep- 
tion, are  dead  in  sin.  That  the  affections  are  depraved.  That 
the  wicked  man  out  of  the  evil  treasure  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth 
that  which  is  evil.  Christ  died  for  us  while  we  were  without 
strength.  Sinners  are  the  servants  of  sin.  Men  are  said  to  be 
subject  to  Satan,  led  about  by  him  at  his  will. 

The  change  accomplished  in  regeneration  is  said  to  be,  not  a 
mere  change  of  purpose,  but  a  "  new  birth,"  a  "  new  creation,"  a 
"  begetting  anew,"  a  "  giving  a  new  heart,"  the  result  is  the 
"  workmanship  of  God."  Christ  gives  repentance  to  Israel.  All 
Christian  graces  are  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  The  work  in  us  is 
accomphshed  by  the  "  exceeding  greatness  of  the  mighty  power  of 
God."— Eph.  i.,  18-20  ;  John  iii.,  3-8  ;  Eom.  viii.,  2  ;  Gal.  v.,  17. 

21.  Hoiv  can  the  fact  of  man's  inability  be  reconciled  with  his 
responsibility  ? 

It  is  objected  that  "  a  man  can  not  be  justly  responsible  for 
doing  that  which  he  is  unable  to  do."  This  maxim  is  self- 
evidently  true  when  the  inability  arises  either  from  the  absence 
of  the  natural  faculties  proper  to  the  agent,  or  fi-om  the  want  of 
opportunity  to  use  them.  Neither  an  idiot,  nor  a  man  devoid  of 
the  rudiments  of  a  moral  sense,  nor  a  man  whose  volitions  were 
not  determined  by  the  genuine  disposition  of  his  own  heart,  would 
be  responsible. 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  269 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  just  as  clearly  a  matter  of  uni- 
versal consciousness  that  when  the  cause  of  inability  consists  in 
the  absence  of  the  proper  moral  dispositions,  that  inability,  in- 
stead of  being  inconsistent  with  responsibility,  is  the  very  ground 
of  righteous  condemnation.  No  matter  whence  the  malignant  or 
the  profane  disposition  comes,  whether  innate  or  acquired,  all 
men  judge,  1st,  that  the  stronger  they  are  the  less  is  the  agent's 
ability  to  change  them  ;  yet,  2d,  that  the  stronger  they  are  the 
greater  is  the  agent's  ill  desert  on  their  account. 

22.  How  can  man's  indbility  he  reconciled  with  the  commands, 
promises,  and  threatenings  of  God  ? 

God  righteously  deals  with  the  sinner  according  to  the  mea- 
sure of  his  responsibility,  and  not  according  to  the  measure  of  his 
sinful  inability.  It  would  have  been  a  compromise  altogether 
unworthy  of  God  to  have  lowered  his  demands  in  proportion  to 
man's  sin.  Besides,  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  God  makes 
use  of  his  commands,  promises,  and  threatenings,  as  gracious 
means,  under  the  influence  of  his  Spirit,  to  enlighten  the  minds, 
quicken  the  consciences,  and  to  sanctify  the  hearts  of  men. 

23.  Hoiv  can  man's  inability  he  shown  to  he  consistent  luith 
the  rationed  use  of  means  ? 

The  efficiency  of  all  means  lies  in  the  power  of  God,  and  not 
in  the  ability  of  man.  God  has  established  a  connection  between 
certain  means  and  the  ends  desired  ;  he  has  commanded  us  to 
use  them,  and  has  promised  to  bless  them  ;  and  human  experi- 
ence has  proved  God's  faithfulness  to  his  engagements,  and  the 
instrumental  connection  between  the  means  and  the  end. 

24.   What  are  the  legitimate,  practical  effects  of  this  doctrine  ? 

This  dreadful  fact  ought  to  lead  us  to  feel,  1st,  with  respect 
to  ourselves,  humility,  and  self-despair.  2d.  With  respect  to  God, 
sincere  gratitude  and  perfect  confidence.  And,  3d,  to  the  prac- 
tice of  constant  circumspection  lest  we  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
be  left  to  our  own  helplessness. 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

THE     COVENANT     OF     GRACE. 

1.   What  is  the  New  Testament  usage  of  the  term  StadrJKr]  ? 

This  word  occurs  thirty-three  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  is  almost  uniformly  translated  covenant  when  it  refers  to  the 
dealings  of  God  with  his  ancient  church,  and  testament  when  it 
refers  to  his  dealings  with  his  church  under  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion. Its  fundamental  sense  is  that  of  disposition,  arrangement ; 
in  the  classics  generally  that  specific  form  of  an-angement  or  dis- 
position called  a  testament,  which  sense,  however,  it  properly 
bears  in  but  one  passage  in  the  New  Testament,  viz.,  Heb.  ix., 
16,  17.  Although  it  is  never  used  to  designate  that  eternal  cov- 
enant of  grace  which  the  Father  made  with  the  Son  as  the  second 
Adam,  in  behalf  of  his  people,  yet  it  always  designates  either  the 
old  or  the  new  dispensation,  i.  e.,  mode  of  administration  of  that 
changeless  covenant,  or  some  special  covenant  which  Christ  has 
formed  with  his  people  in  the  way  of  administering  the  covenant 
of  grace,  e.  g.,  the  covenants  with  Abraham  and  with  Da-vdd. 

Thus  the  disposition  made  by  God  with  the  ancient  chm'ch 
through  Moses,  the  Old  contrasted  in  the  New  Testament  with 
the  Neiv  diadriKT]  (Gal.  iv.,  24),  was  really  a  covenant,  both  civil 
and  religious,  formed  between  Jehovah  and  the  Israelites,  yet 
alike  in  its  legal  element,  "  which  was  added  because  of  trans- 
gressions, till  the  seed  should  come  to  whom  the  j)romise  was 
made,"  and  in  its  symbolical  and  typical  element  teaching  of 
Christ,  it  was  in  a  higher  view  a  disj)ensation,  or  mode  of  admin- 
istration of  the  covenant  of  grace.  So  also  the  present  gospel 
disposition  introduced  by  Christ  assumes  the  form  of  a  covenant 
between  him  and  his  people,  including  many  gi'acious  promises, 
suspended  on  conditions,  yet  it  is  evidently  in  its  highest  aspect 


USAGE  OF  diadiJKT].  271 

that  mode  of  administering  the  changeless  covenant  of  grace 
which  is  called  the  "  new  and  better  dispensation,"  in  contrast 
with  the  comparatively  imperfect  "  old  and  first  dispensation"  of 
that  same  covenant. — See  2  Cor.  iii.,  14  ;  Heb.  viii.,  6.,  8,  9,  10  ; 
ix.,  15  ;  Gal.  iv.,  24. 

The  present  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace  by  our  Sa- 
viour, in  one  respect,  evidently  bears  a  near  analogy  to  a  will  or 
testamentary  disposition,  since  it  dispenses  blessings  which  could 
be  fully  enjoyed  only  after,  and  by  means  of  his  death.  Conse- 
quently Paul  uses  the  word  diadrJKTj  in  one  single  passage,  to  des- 
ignate the  present  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace  in  this 
interesting  aspect  of  it. — Heb.  ix.,  16,  17.  Yet  since  the  various 
dispensations  of  that  eternal  covenant  are  always  elsewhere  in 
Scripture  represented  under  the  form  of  special  administrative 
covenants,  and  not  under  the  form  of  testaments,  it  is  to  be  re- 
gretted that  our  translators  have  so  frequently  rendered  this  term 
SiadijKT],  by  the  specific  word  testament,  instead  of  the  word  cove- 
nant, or  by  the  more  general  word  dispensation. — See  1  Cor.  iii., 
6,  14  ;  Gal.  iii.,  15  ;  Heb.  vii.,  22  ;  xii.,  24  ;  xiii.,  20 

2.  What  are  the  three  views  as  to  the  parties  in  the  covenant 
of  grace  held  by  Calvinists  ? 

These  differences  do  not  in  the  least  involve  the  truth  of  any 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  but  concern  only  the  form  in 
which  that  truth  may  be  more  or  less  clearly  presented. 

Ist.  The  first  view  regards  the  covenant  of  grace  as  made  by 
God  with  elect  sinners.  God  promising  to  save  sinners  as  such 
on  the  condition  of  faith,  they,  when  converted,  promising  faith 
and  obedience.  Christ  in  this  view  is  not  one  of  the  parties  to 
the  covenant,  but  its  Mediator  in  behalf  of  his  elect,  and  their 
surety,  i.  e.,  he  guarantees  that  all  the  conditions  demanded  of 
them  shall  be  fulfilled  by  them  through  his  grace. 

2d.  The  second  view  supposes  two  covenants,  the  first,  called 
the  covenant  of  redemption,  foraied  from  eternity  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son  as  parties.  The  Son  promising  to  obey  and 
suffer,  the  Father  promising  to  give  him  a  people  and  to  grant 
them  in  him  all  spiritual  blessings  and  eternal  life.  The  second, 
called  the  covenant  of  grace,  formed  by  God  with  the  elect  as 
parties,  Christ  being  mediator  and  surety  in  behalf  of  his  people. 


272  THE   COVENANT   OF   GRACE. 

3d.  As  there  are  two  Adams  set  forth  in  the  Scripture,  the 
one  representing  the  entire  race  in  an  economy  of  nature,  and  the 
other  representing  the  whole  body  of  the  elect  in  an  economy  of 
grace,  it  appears  more  simple  to  regard  as  the  foundation  of  all 
God's  dealings  with  mankind  of  whatever  class  only  the  two  great 
contrasted  covenants  of  works  and  of  grace.  The  former  made 
by  God  at  the  creation  of  the  world  with  Adam,  as  the  federal 
head  and  representative  of  all  his  posterity.  Of  the  promises, 
conditions,  penalty,  and  issue  of  that  covenant  I  have  spoken 
under  a  former  head,  see  Chapter  XV.  The  latter,  or  covenant 
of  grace,  formed  in  the  counsels  of  eternity  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son  as  contracting  parties,  the  Son  therein  contracting 
as  the  second  Adam,  representing  all  his  people  as  their  mediator 
and  surety,  assuming  their  place  and  undertaking  all  their  obli- 
gations, under  the  unsatisfied  covenant  of  works,  and  undertaking 
to  apj)ly  to  them  all  the  benefits  secured  by  this  eternal  covenant 
of  grace,  and  to  secure  the  performance  upon  their  part  of  all 
those  duties  which  are  involved  therein.  Thus  in  one  aspect  this 
covenant  may  be  viewed  as  contracted  with  the  head  for  the  sal- 
vation of  the  members,  and  in  another  as  contracted  with  the 
members  in  their  head  and  sponsor.  For  that  which  is  a  grace 
from  God  is  a  duty  upon  om-  part,  as  St.  Augustin  prayed,  "  Da 
quod  jubes,  et  jubes  quod  vis  ;"  and  hence  results  this  complex 
view  of  the  covenant. 

As  embraced  under  one  or  other  of  these  two  great  covenants 
of  works  or  of  grace,  every  man  in  the  world  stands  in  God's 
sight.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  in  the  several  dis- 
pensations, or  modes  of  administration  of  the  eternal  covenant  of 
grace,  Christ  has  contracted  various  special  covenants  with  his 
people,  as  administrative  provisions  for  carrying  out  the  engage- 
ments, and  for  applying  to  them  the  benefits  of  his  covenant  with 
the  Father.  Thus,  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  (the  Second  Person, 
see  above.  Chapter  VIII.,  question  12,)  with  Noah,  the  second 
natural  head  of  the  human  family.  Gen.  ix.,  11,  15.  The  cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  the  typical  believer,  bearing  the  visible  sign 
and  seal  of  circumcision,  and  thus  founding  the  visible  church  as 
an  aggregate  of  families.  This  covenant  continues  to  be  the  char- 
ter of  the  visible  church  to  this  day,  the  sacraments  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supper  now  attached  to  it,  signifying  and  sealing 


FACT   PROVED.  273 

the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  wit,  eternal  life,  faith, 
repentance,  obedience,  etc.,  on  Grod's  part,  as  matters  of  promise; 
on  ours  as  matters  of  duty,  i.  e.,  so  far  as  they  are  to  be  performed 
by  ourselves.  Compare  Gen.  xvii.,  9-13,  with  Gal.  iii.,  15-17. 
The  national  covenant  with  the  Jews,  then  constituting  the  visi- 
ble church,  Ex.  xxxiv.,  27.  The  covenant  with  David,  the  type 
of  Christ  as  Mediatorial  King,  2  Sam.  vii.,  15,  16  ;  2  Chron.  vii., 
18.  The  universal  oifers  of  the  gospel  during  the  present  dispen- 
sation, also,  are  presented  in  the  form  of  a  covenant.  Salvation 
is  offered  to  all  on  the  condition  of  faith,  but  faith  is  God's  gift 
secured  for  and  promised  to  the  elect,  and  when  given  exercised 
by  them.  Every  believer,  when  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  enters  into  a  covenant  with  his  Lord,  which  he  renews  in 
all  acts  of  faith  and  prayer.  But  these  special  covenants  all  and 
several  are  provisions  for  the  administration  of  the  eternal  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  are  designed  solely  to  convey  the  benefits 
therein  secured  to  those  to  whom  they  belong. 

For  the  statements  of  our  standards  upon  this  subject,  com- 
pare Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  VII.,  Section  3,  with  L.  Cat., 
question  31. 

3.  Prove  from  Scriptures  that  there  is  a  covenant  of  grace 
between  the  Father  and  Son  providing  for  the  redemption  of 
men. 

1st.  The  Scriptures  declare  the  existence  of  the  promise  and 
conditions  of  such  a  covenant,  and  present  them  in  connection. — 
Isa.  liii.,  10,  11. 

2d.  The  Scriptures  expressly  affirm  the  existence  of  such  a 
covenant. — ^Isa.  xlii.,  6  ;  Ps.  Ixxxix.,  3. 

3d.  Christ  makes  constant  reference  to  a  previous  commission 
he  had  received  of  his  Father. — John  x.,  18  ;  Luke  xxii.,  29. 

4th.  Christ  claims  a  reward  which  had  been  conditioned  upon 
the  fulfillment  of  that  commission. — John  xvii.,  4. 

5th.  Christ  constantly  asserts  that  his  people  and  his  expected 
glory  arc  given  to  him  as  a  reward  by  his  Father. — John  xvii.,  6, 
9,  24  ;  Phil,  ii.,  6-11.      ■ 

4.  Who  2vere  the  parties  to  this  covenant  of  grace  ;   what 


274  THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 

were  its  promises  or  conditions  on  the  part  of  the  Father  ;    and 
what  its  conditions  on  the  p)art  of  the  Son  ? 

Ist.  The  contracting  parties  were  the  Father  representing  the 
entire  Grodhead  in  its  indivisible  sovereignty  ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  God  the  Son,  as  Mediator,  representing  all  his  elect  people, 
and  as  administrator  of  the  covenant,  standing  their  surety  for  their 
performance  of  all  those  duties  which  were  involved  on  their  part. 

2d.  The  conditions  upon  the  jjart  of  the  Father  were,  (1.)  all 
needful  preparation,  Heb.  x,,  5  ;  Isa.  xlii.,  1-7  ;  (2.)  support 
in  his  work,  Luke  xxii.,  43  ;  (3.)  a  glorious  reward,  first  in  the 
exaltation  of  his  theanthropic  person  "  above  every  name  that  is 
named,"  Phil,  ii.,  6-11,  and  the  universal  dominion  committed  to 
him  as  Mediator,  John  v.,  22  ;  Ps.  ex.,  1  ;  and  in  committing  to 
his  hand  the  administration  of  all  the  provisions  of  the  covenant 
of  grace  in  behalf  of  all  his  people.  Matt,  xxviii.,  18  ;  John  i.,  12  ; 
xvii.,  2  ;  vii.,  39  ;  Acts  ii.,  33  ;  and,  secondly,  in  the  salvation 
of  all  those  for  whom  he  acted,  including  the  provisions  of  regene- 
ration, justification,  sanctification,  perseverance,  and  glory,  Titus 
i.,  2  ;  Jer.  xxxi.,  33  ;  xxxii.,  40  ]  Isa.  xxxv.,  10 ;  liii.,  10,  11. — 
Dicks'  Theo.  Lee,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  506-509. 

3d.  The  conditions  upon  the  part  of  the  Son  were,  (1.)  that 
he  should  become  incarnate,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the 
law,  Gal.  iv.,  4,  5  ;  (2.)  that  he  should  assume  and  fully  dis- 
charge, in  behalf  of  his  elect,  all  violated  conditions  and  incurred 
liabilities  of  the  covenant  of  works.  Matt,  v.,  17,  18,  which  he 
was  to  accomplish,  first,  by  rendering  to  the  precept  of  the  law  a 
perfect  obedience,  Ps.  xl.,  8 ;  Isa.  xlii.,  21  ;  John  ix.,  4,  5  ;  viii., 
29  ;  Matt,  xix.,  17  ;  and,  secondly,  in  suffering  the  full  penalty 
incurred  by  the  sins  of  his  people. — Isa.  liii.  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  21  ;  Gal. 
iii.,  13  ;  Eph.  v.,  2. 

5.  In  ivhat  sense  is  Christ  said  to  be  the  mediator  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  ? 

Christ  is  mediator  of  the  eternal  covenant  of  grace  because, 
1st.  As  the  one  mediator  between  God  and  man,  he  contracted 
it.  2d.  As  mediator,  he  fulfills  all  its  conditions  in  behalf  of  his 
people.  3d.  As  mediator,  he  administers  it  and  dispenses  all  its 
blessings.  4th.  In  all  this,  Christ  was  not  a  mere  mediatorial 
internuntius,  as  Moses  is  called  (Gal.  iii.,  19),  but  he  was  mcdi- 


MEDIATOR  OP   THE   COVENANT.  275 

ator  (1.)  plenipotentiary  (Matt,  xxviii.,  18),  and  (2.)  as  higli 
jiriest  who  actually  effects  reconciliation  by  sacrifice  (Rom.  iii.,  25). 
5th.  The  phrase  fieatTTjg  diadrjicrjg,  mediator  of  the  covenant,  is  ap- 
plied to  Christ  three  times  in  the  New  Testament  (Heb.  viii., 
6  ;  ix.,  15  ;  xii.,  24)  ;  but  as  in  each  case  the  term  for  covenant 
is  qualified  by  either  the  adjective  "  new"  or  "  better/"  it  evi- 
dently here  is  used  to  designate  not  the  covenant  of  grace  prop- 
erly, but  that  new  dispensation  of  that  eternal  covenant  which 
Christ  introduced  in  person  in  contrast  to  the  less  perfect  admin- 
istration of  it  which  was  instrumentally  introduced  by  Moses. 
In  the  general  administration  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  Christ  has 
acted  as  sacerdotal  mediator  from  the  foundation  of  the  world 
(Rev.  xiii.,  8).  On  the  other  hand,  the  first  or  "  old  dispensa- 
tion," or  special  mode  of  administering  that  covenant  visibly 
among  men,  was  instrumentally,  and  as  to  visible  form,  "  or- 
dained by  angels  in  the  hand  of  a  mediator,"  i.  e.,  Moses  (Gal. 
iii.,  19).  It  is  precisely  in  contradistinction  to  this  relation  which 
Moses  sustained  to  the  outward  revelation  of  those  symbolical 
and  typical  institutions,  through  which  the  covenant  of  grace  was 
then  administered,  that  the  superior  excellence  of  the  "  new"  and 
"  better"  dispensation  is  declared  to  consist  in  this,  that  now 
Christ  the  "  Son  in  his  own  house"  visibly  discloses  himself  as 
the  true  mediator  in  the  spiritual  and  personal  administration  of 
his  covenant.  Hence  he  who  from  the  beginning  was  the  "  one 
mediator  between  God  and  man"  (1  Tim.,  ii,,  5)  now  is  revealed 
as  in  way  of  eminence,  the  mediator  and  surety  of  that  eternal 
covenant  under  the  "  new"  and  "  better"  dispensation  of  it,  since 
now  he  is  rendered  visible  in  the  fullness  of  his  spiritual  gi*aces,  as 
the  immediate  administrator  thereof,  whereas  under  the  "  first" 
and  "  old"  dispensation  he  was  hidden, — See  Sampson's  Com.  on 
Hebrews. 

6.  I71  ivhat  sense  is  Christ  said  to  he  surety  of  the  covenant 
of  grace  ? 

In  the  only  instance  in  which  the  term  surety  is  applied  to 
Christ  in  the  New  Testament  (Heb.  vii.,  22),  "  surety  of  a  better 
testament,"  the  word  translated  testament  evidently  is  designed 
to  designate  the  new  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as 
contrasted  with  the  old.     Paul  is  contrasting  the  priesthood  of 


276  THE   COVENANT   OF   GRACE. 

Christ  with  the  Levitical.  He  is  priest  or  surety  after  a  higher 
order,  under  a  clearer  revelation,  and  a  more  real  and  direct  ad- 
ministration of  grace,  than  were  the  typical  priests  descended 
from  Aaron.  Christ  is  our  surety  at  once  as  priest  and  as  king. 
As  priest  because,  as  such,  he  assumes  and  discharges  all  our  ob- 
ligations under  the  broken  covenant  of  works.  As  king,  (the 
two  in  him  are  inseparable,  he  is  always  a  royal  priest,)  because, 
as  such,  he  administers  the  blessings  of  his  covenant  to  his  peo- 
ple, and  to  this  end  entering  into  covenants  with  them,  oifering 
them  gi-ace  upon  the  condition  of  faith  and  obedience,  and  then, 
as  their  surety,  giving  them  the  graces  of  faith  and  obedience, 
that  they  may  fulfill  their  part. 

7.  What  general  method  has  characterized  Christ's  adminis- 
tration of  his  covenant  under  all  dispensations  ? 

The  purchased  benefits  of  the  covenant  are  placed  in  Christ's 
hand,  to  be  bestowed  upon  his  people  as  free  and  sovereign  gifts. 
From  Christ  to  us  they  are  all  gifts,  but  from  us  to  Christ  many 
of  them  are  duties.  Thus,  in  the  administration  of  the  covenant 
of  gi-ace,  many  of  these  purchased  blessings,  which  are  to  take 
effect  in  our  acts,  e.  g.,  faith,  etc.,  he  demands  of  us  as  duties, 
and  promises  other  benefits  as  a  reward  conditioned  on  our  obe- 
dience. Thus,  so  to  speak,  he  rewards  grace  with  grace,  and  con- 
ditions grace  upon  grace.  Promising  faith  to  his  elect,  then 
working  faith  in  them,  then  rewarding  them  for  its  exercise  with 
peace  of  conscience,  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  eternal  life, 
etc.,  etc. 

8.  TFJiat  is  the  Arminian  view  of  the  covenant  of  grace  ? 
They  hold,  1st,  as  to  the  parties  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  that 

God  offers  it  to  all  men,  and  that  he  actually  contracts  it  with  all 
believers.  2d.  As  to  its  promises,  that  they  include  all  the  tem- 
poral and  eternal  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption.  3d.  As  to  its 
conditions,  that  God  now  graciously  accepts  faith  and  evangelical 
obedience  for  righteousness,  in  the  place  of  that  perfect  legal  obe- 
dience he  demanded  of  man  under  the  covenant  of  works,  the 
meritorious  work  of  Christ  making  it  consistent  with  the  princi- 
ples of  divine  justice  for  him  so  to  do.  They  regard  all  men 
as  rendered  by  sufficient  grace  capable  of  fulfilling  such  conditions, 
if  they  will. 


ONE   FROM   THE   BEGINNING.  277 

9.  In  what  sense  can  faith  he  called  a  condition  of  salvation  ? 

Faith  is  a  condition  sine  qua  non  of  salvation,  i.  e.,  no  adult 
man  can  be  saved  if  he  does  not  believe,  and  every  man  that  does 
believe  shall  be  saved.  It  is,  however,  a  gift  of  Grod  and  the  first 
part  or  stage  of  salvation.  Viewed  on  God's  side  it  is  the  be- 
ginning and  index  of  his  saving  work  in  us.  Viewed  on  our  side 
it  is  our  duty,  and  must  be  our  own  act.  It  is,  therefore,  as  our 
act,  the  instrument  of  our  union  with  Christ,  and  thus  the  neces- 
sary antecedent,  though  never  the  meritorious  cause  of  the  giaci- 
ous  salvation  which  follows. 

10.  What  are  the  promises  which  Christ,  as  the  administra- 
tor of  the  covenant  of  grace,  makes  to  all  those  who  believe  ? 

The  promise  to  Abraham  to  be  a  "  God  to  him  and  to  his 
seed  after  him"  (Gen.  xvii.,  7)  embraces  all  others.  All  tilings 
alike,  physical  and  moral,  in  providence  and  grace,  for  time  and 
eternity,  are  to  work  together  for  our  good.  "  All  are  yours,  and 
ye  are  Christ's,  and  Christ  is  God's." — 1  Cor.  iii.,  22,  23. 

11.  Prove  that  Christ  was  mediator  of  men  before  as  well  as 
after  his  advent  in  the  flesh. 

1st.  As  mediator  he  is  both  priest  and  sacrifice,  and  as  such 
it  is  affirmed  that  he  is  the  "  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of 
the  earth,"  and  a  "  propitiation  for  the  sins  that  are  past." — Eev. 
xiii.,  8  ;  Rom.  iii.,  25  ;  Heb.  ix.,  15. 

2d.  He  was  promised  to  Adam,  Gen.  iii.,  15. 

3d.  In  the  3d  chapter  of  Gal.  Paul  proves  that  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.,  7,  xxii.,  18,  is  the  very  same  gos- 
pel that  the  apostle  himself  preached.  Thus  Abraham  became 
the  father  of  those  that  believe. 

4th.  Acts  X.,  43,  "  To  liim  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that 
through  his  name,  whosoever  believeth  on  him  shall  receive  re- 
mission of  sin." — See  53d  chap,  of  Is.,  also  chap,  xlii.,  6. 

5th.  The  ceremonial  institutions  of  Moses  were  symbolical 
and  typical  of  Christ's  work  ;  as  symbols  they  signified  Christ's 
merit  and  grace  to  the  ancient  worshiper  for  his  present  salvation, 
while  as  types  they  prophesied  the  substance  which  was  to  come. — 
Heb.  X.,  1-10  ;  Col.  ii.,  17. 


278  THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 

6th.  Christ  was  the  Jehovah  of  the  old  dispensation. — See 
above,  Chap.  VIII.,  question  12. 

12.  Prove  that  faith  luas  the  condition  of  salvation  before  the 
advent  of  Christ,  in  the  same  sense  that  it  is  now  ? 

1st.  This  is  affirmed  in  the  Old  Testament,  Hab.  ii.,  4  ;  Ps. 
ii.,  12. 

2d.  The  New  Testament  writers  illustrate  their  doctrine  of 
justification  by  feith  by  the  examples  of  Old  Testament  be- 
lievers.— See  Rom.  iv.,  and  Heb.  xi. 

13.  Show  that  Christ,  as  administrator  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  gave  to  the  members  of  the  Old  Testament  church  pre- 
cisely the  same  promises  that  he  does  to  us. 

1st.  The  promises  given  to  Christ's  ancient  people  clearly  em- 
brace all  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings,  e.  g.,  the  promise  given 
to  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.,  7,  as  expounded  by  Christ,  Matt,  xxii., 
32,  and  the  promise  given  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xxii.,  18  ;  xii.  3  ; 
as  expounded  by  Paul,  Gal.  iii.,  16  ;  see  also  Is.  xliii.,  25  ;  Ezek. 
xxxvi.,  27  ;  Dan.  xii.,  2,  3. 

2d.  This  is  plain  also  from  the  expectation  and  prayers  of 
God's  people,  51st  Ps.  and  16th  Ps  ;  Job  xix.,  24r-27  ;  Ps.  Ixxiii., 
24-26. 

14.  How  was  the  covenant  of  grace  administered  from  Adam 
to  Abraham  '^ 

1st.  By  jiromise.  Gen.  iii.,  15. 

2d  By  means  of  typical  sacrifices  instituted  in  the  family  of 
Adam. 

3d.  By  means  of  immediate  revelations  and  appearances  of  the 
Jehovah,  or  divine  mediator  to  his  people.  Thus  "  the  Lord"  is 
represented  throughout  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis  as 
"speaking"  to  men.  That  these  promises  and  sacrifices  were 
then  understood  in  their  true  spiritual  intent  is  proved  by  Paul, 
Heb.  xi.,  4^7.  And  that  this  administration  of  the  covenant  of 
grace  reached  many  of  the  people  of  the  earth,  during  this  era,  is 
proved  by  the  history  of  Job  in  Arabia,  of  Abraham  in  Mesopo- 
tamia, and  of  Melchisedec  in  Canaan. 


MOSAIC   DISPENSATION.  279 

15.  How  was  it  administered  from  Abraham  to  Moses  ? 

Ist.  The  promise  given  during  the  preceding  period,  (Gen.  iii,, 
15,)  is  now  renewed  in  the  form  of  a  more  definite  covenant,  re- 
vealing the  coming  Saviour  as  in  the  line  of  Abraham's  posterity- 
through  Isaac,  and  the  interest  of  the  whole  world  in  his  salva- 
tion is  more  fully  set  forth,  Gen.  xvii.,  7 ;  xxii.,  18.  This  was 
the  gospel  preached  beforehand,  Gal.  iii.,  8. 

2d.  Sacrifices  were  continued  as  before. 

3d.  The  church,  or  company  of  believers,  which  existed  from 
the  beginning  in  its  individual  members,  was  now  formed  into  a 
general  body  as  an  aggregate  of  families,  by  the  institution  of 
circumcision,  as  a  visible  symbol  of  the  benefits  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  and  as  a  badge  of  church  membership. 

16.  What  was  the  true  nature  of  the  covenant  made  by  God 
with  the  Israelites  through  Moses  ? 

It  may  be  regarded  in  three  aspects — 

1st.  As  a  national  and  political  covenant,  whereby,  in  a  po- 
litical sense,  they  became  his  people,  under  his  theocratical  gov- 
ernment, and  in  this  pecuhar  sense  he  became  their  God.  The 
church  and  the  state  were  identical.  In  one  aspect  the  whole 
system  had  reference  to  this  relation. 

2d.  It  was  in  one  aspect  a  legal  covenant,  because  the  moral 
law,  obedience  to  which  was  the  condition  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  was  prominently  set  forth,  and  conformity  to  this  law  was 
made  the  condition  of  God's  favor,  and  of  all  national  blessings. 
Even  the  ceremonial  system  in  its  merely  literal,  and  apart  from 
its  symbolical  aspect,  was  also  a  rule  of  works,  for  cursed  was  he 
that  confirmeth  not  all  the  words  of  this  law  to  do  them. — Deut. 
xxvii.,  26. 

3d.  But  in  the  symbolical  and  typical  significance  of  all  the 
Mosaic  institutions,  they  were  a  clearer  and  fuUer  revelation  of 
the  provisions  of  the  covenant  of  grace  than  had  ever  before 
been  made.  This  Paul  abundantly  proves  throughout  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. — Hodge  on  Komans. 

17.  What  are  the  characteristic  differences  betiveen  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  covenant  of  grace  under  the  law  of  Moses  and 
after  the  advent  of  Chi'ist  ? 


280  THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 

These  differences,  of  course,  relate  only  to  the  mode  of  admin- 
istration, and  not  to  the  matter  of  the  truth  revealed,  nor  of  the 
grace  administered.  1st.  The  truth  was  then  signified  hy  sym- 
bols, which,  at  the  same  time,  were  types  of  the  real  atonement 
for  sin  afterwards  to  be  made.  Now  the  truth  is  revealed  in  the 
plain  gospel  history.  2d.  That  revelation  was  less  full  as  well 
as  less  clear.  3d.  It  was  so  encumbered  with  ceremonies  as  to  be 
comparatively  a  carnal  dispensation.  The  present  dispensation  is 
spiritual.  4th.  It  was  confined  to  one  people.  The  present  dis- 
pensation, disembarrassed  from  all  national  organizations,  em- 
braces the  whole  earth.  5th.  The  former  method  of  administra- 
tion was  evidently  preparatory  to  the  present,  which  is  final. 


CHAPTER     XX. 

THE     PERSON     OF     CHRIST. 

1.  How  can  it  he  proved  that  the  2)romised  3Iessiah  of  the 
Jeiuish  Scriptures  has  already  come,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
that  person  1 

AVe  prove  that  he  must  have  akeady  come  by  showing  that 
the  conditions  of  time  and  circumstances,  which  the  prophets 
declare  should  mark  his  advent,  are  no  longer  possible.  We 
prove,  secondly,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  that  person  by  show- 
ing that  every  one  of  those  conditions  was  fulfilled  in  him. 

2.  Prove  that  Gen.  xlix.,  10,  refers  to  the  Messiah,  and  show 
how  it  proves  that  the  Messiah  must  have  already  come. 

The  original  word,  translated  shiloh,  signifies  peace,  and  is 
applied  to  the  Messiah.  (Compare  Micah  v.,  2,  5,  with  Matt,  ii., 
6.)  Besides,  it  is  only  to  the  Messiah  that  the  gathering  of  the 
nations  is  to  be,  see  Isa.  Iv.,  5  ;  Ix.,  3  ;  Hag.  ii.,  7.  The  Jews, 
moreover,  have  always  understood  this  passage  as  referring  to  the 
Messiah. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  the  sceptre  and 
the  lawgiver  did  remain  with  Judah  ;  but  seventy  years  after  his 
birth,  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  they  finally  departed.  If 
the  advent  of  the  Messiah  had  not  occurred  previously  this  pro- 
phecy is  false. 

3.  Do  the  same  with  reference  to  the  prophecy  of  Dan.  ix., 
24-27. 

This  prophecy  refers  expressly  to  the  Messiah,  and  to  his 
peculiar  and  exclusive  work.  That  the  seventy  weeks  here  men- 
tioned are  to  be  interpreted  weeks  of  years  is  certain,  1st,  from 


282  THE   PERSON   OF    CHRIST. 

the  fact  that  it  was  the  Jewish  custom  so  to  divide  time ;  2d, 
from  the  fact  that  this  was  precisely  the  common  usage  of  the 
prophetical  books,  see  Ezek.  iv.,  6  ;  Rev.  xii.  6  ;  xiii.,  5  ;  3d, 
from  the  fact  that  the  literal  application  of  the  language  as  seventy 
common  weeks  is  impracticable. 

The  prophecy  is,  that  seven  weeks  of  years,  or  forty-nine  years 
from  the  end  of  the  captivity,  the  city  would  be  rebuilt.  That 
riixty-two  weeks  of  years,  or  four  hundred  and  thirty-four  years 
after  the  rebuilding  of  the  city,  the  Messiah  should  appear,  and 
that  during  the  period  of  one  week  of  years  he  should  confirm  the 
covenant,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  week  be  cut  off. 

There  is  some  doubt  as  to  the  precise  date  from  which  the 
calculation  ought  to  commence.  The  greatest  difference,  however, 
is  only  ten  years,  and  the  most  probable  date  causes  the  pro- 
phecy to  coincide  precisely  with  the  history  of  Jesus  Christ. 

4.  What  prophecies,  relating  to  the  time,  place,  and  circum- 
stances of  the  birth  of  the  Messiah,  have  been  fulfilled  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  ? 

As  to  time,  it  was  predicted  that  he  should  come  before  the 
sceptre  departed  from  Judah,  (Gen.  xlix.,  10,)  at  the  end  of  four 
hundred  and  ninety  years  after  the  going  forth  of  the  command  to 
rebuild  Jerusalem,  and  while  the  second  temple  was  still  stand- 
ing.— Hag.  ii.,  9  ;  Mai.  iii.,  1. 

As  to  place  and  circumstances,  he  was  to  be  born  in  Beth- 
lehem, (Micah  v.,  2,)  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  of  the  family  of  Da- 
vid, Jer.  xxiii.,  5-6.  He  was  to  be  born  of  a  virgin,  Isa.  vii.,  14; 
and  to  be  preceded  by  a  forerunner,  Mai.  iii.,  1.  All  these  met 
in  Jesus  Christ,  and  can  never  again  be  fulfilled  in  another,  since 
the  genealogies  of  tribes  and  families  have  been  lost, 

5.  What  remarkable  characteristics  of  the  Messiah,  as  de- 
scribed in  the  Old  Testament,  were  verified  in  our  Saviour  ? 

He  w^as  to  be  a  king  and  conqueror  of  universal  empire,  Ps.  ii., 
6,  and  Ps.  xlv,  ;  Isa.  ix ,  6,  7  ;  and  yet  despised  and  rejected,  a 
man  of  sorrow,  a  prisoner,  pouring  forth  his  soul  unto  death,  Isa, 
liii.  He  was  to  be  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles,  and  under  his 
administration  the  moral  condition  of  the  whole  earth  was  to  be 
changed,  Isa.  xlii.,  6  ;  xlix.,  6  ;  Ix,,  1-7.     His  death  was  to  be 


JESUS    CHRIST    THE    MESSIAH.  283 

vicarious,  Isa.  liii.,  5,  9,  12.  He  was  to  enter  the  city  riding  upon 
an  ass,  Zech.  ix.,  9.  He  was  to  be  sold  fcfr  thirty  pieces  of  silver, 
and  his  price  purchase  a  potter's  field,  Zech.  xi.,  12,  13.  His 
garments  were  to  be  parted  by  lot,  Ps.  xxii.,  18.  They  were  to 
give  him  vinegar  to  drink,  Ps,  Ixix.,  21.  The  very  words  he  was 
to  utter  on  the  cross  are  predicted,  Ps.  xxii.,  1  ;  also  that  he 
should  be  pierced,  Zech.  xii.,  10 ;  and  make  his  grave  with  the 
wicked  and  with  the  rich,  Isa.  liii.,  9. — See  Dr.  Alexander's  Evi- 
dences of  Christianity. 

6.  What  peculiar  work  was  the  Messiah  to  accomplish^  which 
has  been  performed  by  Christ  ? 

All  his  mediatorial  offices  were  predicted  in  substance.  He 
was  to  do  the  work  of  a  prophet,  (Is.  xlii.,  6  ;  Ix.,  3,)  and  that 
of  a  priest,  (Is.  liii.,  10,)  to  make  reconciliation  for  sin,  (Dan.  ix., 
24.)  As  king,  he  was  to  administer  the  several  dispensations  of 
his  kingdom,  closing  one  and  introducing  another,  sealing  up  the 
vision  and  prophecy,  causing  the  sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease 
(Dan.  ix.,  24),  and  setting  up  a  kingdom  that  should  never  cease 
(Dan.  ii.,  44). 

7.  What  are  the  three  points  involved  in  the  true  doctrine  of 
the  p)erson  of  Christ  as  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  ? 

1st.  The  absolute  divinity  of  Christ  as  the  eternal  Son  of  God, 
the  second  person  of  the  Trinity.  2d.  The  perfect  manhood  of 
Christ ;  the  presence  in  his  divine  person  of  a  true  body  and  a 
reasonable  soul,  which,  beginning  to  exist  only  in  union  with  the 
Godhead,  never  had  a  distinct  personal  subsistence.  3d.  The 
person,  therefore,  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  into  which  person- 
ality has  been  assumed,  and  in  which  is  ever  more  sustained  a 
perfect  human  nature  ;  so  that  he  ever  more  continues  one  per- 
son, constituted  of  two  entire  and  distinct  natures. 

8.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  Christ  is  really  a  man  ? 

He  is  called  man,  1  Tim.,  ii.,  5.  His  most  common  title  is 
Son  of  Man,  Matt,  xiii.,  37,  also  seed  of  the  woman,  Gen.  iii., 
15  ;  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Acts  iii.,  25  ;  Son  of  David,  and  fruit 
of  his  loins,  Luke  i.,  32  ;  made  of  a  woman,  Gal.  iv.,  4.    He 


284  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

had  a  body,  ate,  drank,  slept,  and  increased  in  stature,  Luke  ii., 
52  ;  and  through  a  life  of  thirty-three  years  was  recognized  by  all 
men  as  a  true  man.  He  died  in  agony  on  the  cross,  was  buried, 
rose,  and  proved  his  identity  by  physical  signs,  Luke  xxiv., 
36-44.  He  had  a  reasonable  soul,  for  he  increased  in  wisdom. 
He  exercised  the  common  feelings  of  our  nature,  he  groaned  in 
spirit  and  was  troubled,  he  wept,  John  xi.,  33,  35.  He  loved 
Martha  and  Mary,  and  the  discijjle  that  Jesus  loved  leaned  uj)on 
his  bosom,  John  xiii.,  23. 

The  absolute  divinity  of  Christ  has  been  proved  above.  Chap. 
VIII. 

9.  Hoio  may  it  be  pj^oved  that  both  these  natures  constituted 
hut  one  person  ? 

In  many  passages  both  natures  are  referred  to,  when  it  is  evi- 
dent that  only  one  person  was  intended  (Phil,  ii.,  6-11).  In 
many  passages  both  natures  are  set  forth  as  united.  It  is  never 
affirmed  that  divinity  abstractly,  or  a  divine  power,  was  united 
to,  or  manifested  in  a  human  nature,  but  of  the  divine  nature 
concretely,  that  a  divine  being  was  united  to  a  human  being. — 
Heb.  ii.,  11-14  ;  1  Tim.,  iii.,  16  ;  Gal.  iv.,  4  ;  Rom.  viii.,  3,  and 
i.,  3,  4 ;  ix.,  5  ;  John  i.,  14  ;  1  John,  iv.,  3. 

The  union  of  two  natures  in  one  person  is  also  clearly  taught 
by  those  passages  in  which  the  attributes  of  one  nature  are  predi- 
cated of  the  person,  while  that  person  is  designated  by  a  title 
derived  from  the  other  nature.  Thus  human  attributes  and 
actions  are  predicated  of  Christ  in  certain  passages,  while  the 
person  of  whom  these  attributes  or  actions  are  jjredicated  is  desig- 
nated by  a  divine  title. — Acts  xx.,  28  ;  Rom.  viii.,  32  ;  1  Cor., 
ii.,  8  ;  Matt,  i.,  23  ;  Luke  i.,  31,  32  ;  Col.  i.,  13,  14. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  other  passages,  divine  attributes  and 
actions  are  predicated  of  Christ,  while  his  person,  of  whom  those 
attributes  are  predicated,  is  designated  by  a  human  title. — John 
iii.,  13  ;  vi.,  62  ;  Rom.  ix.,  5  ;  Rev.  v.,  12. 

10.  What  is  the  general  2'>'>'inci pie  upon  ivhich  those  jjassages 
are  to  be  explained  lohich  designate  the  p&rson  of  Christ  from 
one  nature,  and  predicate  attributes  to  it  belonging  to  the  other  ? 

The  person  of  Christ,  constituted  of  two  natures,  is  one  per- 


HIS   HUMAN   NATURE — HOW   AFFECTED.  285 

son.  He  may  therefore  inclifFerently  be  designated  by  divine  or 
human  titles,  and  both  divine  and  human  attributes  may  be  truly 
predicated  of  him.  He  is  still  God  when  he  dies,  and  still  man 
when  he  raises  his  people  from  their  graves. 

Mediatorial  actions  pertain  to  both  natures.  It  must  be  re- 
membered, however,  that  while  the  person  is  one,  the  natures  are 
distinct  as  such.  What  belongs  to  either  nature  is  attributed  to 
the  one  person  to  which  both  belong,  but  what  is  peculiar  to  one 
nature  is  never  attributed  to  the  other.  God,  i.  e.,  the  divine 
person  who  is  at  once  God  and  man,  gave  his  blood  for  his  church, 
i.  e.,  died  as  to  his  human  nature  (Acts  xx.,  28).  But  human 
attributes  or  actions  are  never  asserted  of  Christ's  divine  nature, 
nor  are  divine  attributes  or  actions  ever  asserted  of  his  human 
nature. 

11.  What  ivere  the  effects  of  this  personal  union  upon  tke  di- 
vine nature  of  Christ  ? 

His  divine  nature  being  eternal  and  immutable,  and  of  course 
incapable  of  addition,  remained  unaffected  by  this  union.  The 
whole  immutable  divine  essence  continued  to  subsist  as  the  same 
eternal  person.  That  divine  person  now. embraced  a  perfect  hu- 
man nature,  exalted  by,  yet  dependent  upon,  the  divine  nature,  to 
which  it  is  united. 

12.  What  luere  the  effects  of  that  union  upon  his  human  na- 
ture ? 

The  human  nature,  being  perfect  after  its  kind,  began  to  exist 
in  union  with  the  divine  nature,  and  as  one  constituent  of  the 
divine  person,  and  as  such  it  ever  continues  distinct  and  uncon- 
founded. 

The  effect  of  this  union  upon  Christ's  human  nature,  there- 
fore, was  not  so  much  change  as  exaltation  of  all  natural  and 
possible  human  excellence,  in  degree  above  every  other  creature, 
John  i.,  14  ;  iii.,  34 ;  Is.  xi.,  2  ;  together  with  an  unparalleled 
exaltation  of  outward  dignity  and  glory,  above  every  name  that 
is  named,  and  a  community  of  honor  and  worship  with  the  di- 
vinity in  virtue  of  its  union  therewith  in  the  one  divine  person. 

13.  Eoiu  far  is  the  human  nature  of  Christ  included  in  the 
luorship  due  to  him  'i 


286  THE  PERSON  OF   CHRIST, 

We  must  distinguish  between  the  object  and  the  grounds  of 
worship.  There  can  be  no  proper  ground  of  worship  except  the 
possession  of  divine  attributes.  The  object  of  worship  is  not  the 
divine  excellence  in  the  abstract,  but  the  divine  person  of  whom 
that  excellence  is  an  attri])ute.  The  God-man,  consisting  of  two 
natures,  is  to  be  worshiped  in  the  perfection  of  his  entire  person, 
because  only  of  his  divine  attributes. 

14.  If  Christ  had  a  reasonable  soul  how  can  we  escape  the 
conviction  that  he  ivas  a  human  person  ? 

It  is  indeed  a  great  mystery  that  the  unity  of  personality 
should  remain  in  the  Grod-man,  while  there  are  two  centers  of 
consciousness,  an  infinite  knowing  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  finite 
knowing  on  the  other,  and  two  distinct  though  ever  harmonious 
wills.  The  fact,  however,  that  a  God  took,  not  a  man,  but  a 
human  nature  into  his  eternal  personality,  is  clearly  revealed  in 
Scripture.  The  one  person  in  both-  God  and  man.  The  mystery 
remains  for  the  exercise  of  our  faith. 

15.  What  loere  the  principle  hei'esies  ivhich  obtained  in  the 
early  church  concerning  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person  ? 

1st.  The  Manichaean  heresy,  disseminated  by  Manes,  one  of 
the  converted  Magi,  who,  during  the  third  century  taught  a 
mixed  system  of  religious  philosophy,  adapting  the  historical  facts 
of  Christianity  to  the  peculiar  principles  of  the  Persian  philoso- 
phy. He  taught  that  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  were  immediate 
emanations  from  the  eternal  God,  superior  to  all  creatures,  and 
that  the  Christ  of  history  was  this  spiritual  being,  who  appeared 
among  the  Jews  in  the  shadow  or  appearance  of  a  material  body, 
which  existed  only  in  the  perception  of  men.  As  Manes  taught 
that  matter  is  essentially  evil,  and  that  Christ  appeared  for  the 
very  purpose  of  delivering  human  souls  from  their  entanglement 
in  matter,  he  necessarily  also  taught  that  Christ's  human  body 
was  only  an  appearance  assumed  for  the  purpose  of  making  his 
presence  known  to  man  as  at  present  organized. 

2d.  The  Apollinarian  heresy,  disseminated  by  Apollinaris  the 
younger,  bishop  of  Laodicca,  in  the  fourtli  century.  He  taught 
the  orthodox  doctrine  concerning  the  trinity,  and  further  that  the 


HERETICAL   OPINIONS.  287 

Eternal  Word,  second  person  of  the  trinity,  became  incarnate  by 
taking  to  himself  a  true  human  body.  On  the  other  hand  he 
denied  that  Christ  had  a  human  soul,  since  the  place  of  a  soul  in 
his  person  was  occupied  by  his  divinity.  In  his  view,  then,  the 
person  of  Christ  embraced  (1.)  the  Eternal  Word,  (2.)  a  V^%^,  or 
principle  of  sensitive  animal  life  ;  and  (3.)  a  true  human  body — 
but  no  rational  human  soul. 

3d.  The  Nestorian  heresy,  charged  upon  Nestorius,  a  Syrian 
by  birth,  and  bishop  of  Constantinople,  during  the  fifth  century, 
by  his  enemy,  Cyril,  the  aiTOgant  bishop  of  Alexandria.  Cyril 
obtained  a  judgment  against  Nestorius  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus, 
A.  D.  431,  to  the  efiect  that  he  separated  the  two  natures  of 
Christ  so  far  as  to  teach  the  coexistence  in  him  of  two  distinct 
persons,  a  God  and  a  man,  intimately  united.  But  it  is  now, 
however,  judged,  most  probable  by  Protestant  historians  that  Nes- 
torius was  personally  a  brave  defender  of  the  true  faith,  and  that 
the  misrepresentations  of  his  enemies  were  founded  only  upon  his 
uncompromising  opposition  to  the  dangerous  habit  then  promi- 
nently introduced  of  calling  the  Virgin  Maiy  the  mother  of  God, 
because  she  was  the  mother  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ. 

4th.  The  Eutychian  heresy,  disseminated  by  Eutiches,  an 
abbot  of  a  convent  in  Constantinople  in  the  fifth  century,  was 
precisely  the  opposite  extreme  to  that  charged  upon  Nestorius. 
He  taught  "  that  Christ  was  truly  God  and  truly  man,  united  in 
one  person,  but  that  these  two  natures  after  their  union  did  not 
remain  two  distinct  natures,  but  constituted  one  compound 
nature." — Mosheim's  Eccle.  Hist. 

5.  While  the  Lutheran  Church  in  her  first  standards  affirm 
all  the  points  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  as  to  the  constitution  of 
Christ's  person,  (see  Augsburg  Confession,  article  3d,)  yet,  in 
order  to  maintain  their  doctrine  of  consubstcmtiation,  or  the  lit- 
eral local  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  with,  in  and  under 
the  bread  and  wine  of  the  sacrament,  many  of  her  theologians 
have  used  language  on  this  subject  very  much  assimilated  to  the 
Eutychian  heresy  above  defined.  They  teach  that  while  Christ's 
single  person  consists  of  two  distinct  natures,  yet,  in  their  union, 
the  human  body  and  soul  participate  in  divine  attributes,  e.  g., 
his  human  soul  participates  in  the  omniscience,  and  his  body  in 
the  omnipresence  of  his  divine  nature,  etc.    This  doctrine  (com- 


288  THE  PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

municatio  idiomatiim)  was  opposed  by  Melancthon,  but  affirmed 
by  the  Formula  of  Concord,  generally  adopted  circum,  1850. 

This  imagination  is  inconsistent  (1.)  with  the  clearly  revealed 
fact  that  the  two  natures  in  Christ  are  distinct,  i.  e.,  that  he  ever 
remains  truly  man  as  well  as  truly  God.  For,  if  his  human  soul 
possesses  divine  attributes,  it  is  no  longer  a  human  soul.  (2.) 
With  many  passages  of  Scripture,  which  directly  assert  that  his 
human  nature  ever  continued  subject  to  those  limitations,  as  to 
knowledge,  space  and  time,  etc.,  which  intrinsically  belong  to  it 
as  a  creature,  and  as  human. — Matt,  xxviii,,  5,  6 ;  Mark  xiii.,  32  ; 
Luke  ii.,  52  ;  Acts  iii.,  21  ;  Heb.  viii.,  4. 

16.  Hoio  can  it  he  shoivn  that  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation 
is  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  ? 

1st.  This  doctrine,  and  all  the  elements  thereof,  is  set  forth 
in  the  Scriptures  with  preeminent  clearness  and  prominence. 

2d.  Its  truth  is  essentially  involved  in  every  other  doctrine 
of  the  entire  system  of  faith  ;  in  every  mediatorial  act  of  Christ, 
as  prophet,  priest  and  king ;  in  the  whole  history  of  his  estate 
of  humiliation,  and  in  every  aspect  of  his  estate  of  exaltation  ; 
and,  above  all,  in  the  significance  and  value  of  that  ^dcarious  sac- 
rifice which  is  the  heart  of  the  gospel.  If  Christ  is  not  in  the 
same  person  both  God  and  man,  he  either  could  not  die,  or  his 
•death  could  not  avail.  If  he  be  not  man,  his  whole  history  is  a 
myth  ;  if  he  be  not  God,  to  worship  him  is  idolatry,  yet  not  to 
worship  him  is  to  disobey  the  Father. — John  v.,  23. 

3d.  Scripture  expressly  declares  that  this  doctrine  is  essen- 
tial.— 1  John,  iv.,  2,  3. 


CHAPTER    XXI. 

MEDIATORIAL     OFFICE     OF     CHRIST, 

1.  What  are  the  different  senses  of  the  word  Mediator,  and 
in  whivh  of  these  senses  is  it  used  luhen  applied  to  Ch?'ist  ? 

Ist.  In  the  sense  of  internuntius  or  messenger,  to  explain  the 
will  and  to  perform  the  commands  of  one  or  both  the  contracting 
parties,  e.g.,  Moses,  Gal.  iii.,  19. 

2d.  In  the  sense  of  simple  advocate  or  intercessor,  pleading 
the  cause  of  the  offending  in  the  presence  of  the  offended  party. 

3d.  In  the  sense  of  efficient  peace-maker.  Christ,  as  Mediator, 
1st,  has  all  power  and  judgment  committed  to  his  hands,  Matt, 
xxviii.,  18,  and  ix.,  6  ;  John  v.,  22,  25,  26,  27 ;  and,  2d,  he  effi- 
ciently makes  reconciliation  between  God  and  man  by  an  all- 
satisfactory  expiation  and  meritorious  obedience. 

2.  Why  loas  it  necessary  that  the  Ilediator  should  he  pos- 
sessed both  of  a  divine  and  human  nature  ? 

1st.  It  was  clearly  necessary  that  the  Mediator  should  be 
God.  (1.)  That  he  might  be  independent,  and  not  the  mere 
creature  of  either  party,  or  otherwise  he  could  not  be  the  efficient 
maker  of  peace.  (2.)  That  he  might  reveal  God  and  his  salva- 
tion to  men,  "  For  no  man  knoweth  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and 
he  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal  him,"  Matt,  xi.,  27  ;  John  i.,  18, 
(3.)  That  being,  as  to  person,  above  all  law,  and  as  to  dignity  of 
nature,  infinite,  he  might  render  to  the  law  in  behalf  of  his  peo- 
ple a  free  obedience,  which  he  did  not  otherwise  owe  for  himself, 
and  that  his  obedience  and  suffering  might  possess  an  infinite 
value.  (4.)  That  he  might  possess  the  infinite  wisdom,  knowl- 
edge, and  i)0wer  requisite  to  administer  the  infinite  realms  of 
providence  and  grace,  which  are  committed  to  his  hands  as  me- 
diatorial prince. 

19 


290  MEDIATORIAL   OFFICE   OF   CHRIST. 

2d.  It  is  clearly  necessary  that  he  should  be  man.  (1.)  That 
he  might  truly  represent  man  as  the  second  Adam.  (2.)  That 
he  might  be  made  under  the  law,  in  order  to  render  obedience, 
suffering,  and  temptation  possible,  Gal.  iv.,  4,  5  ;  Luke  iv.,  1-13. 
(3.)  "  In  all  things  it  behoved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his 
brethren,  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest," 
Heb.  ii.,  17,  18,  and  iv.,  15,  16.  (4.)  That  in  his  glorified  hu- 
manity he  might  be  the  head  of  the  glorified  church,  the  example 
and  pattern  to  whom  his  people  are  "predestined  to  be  con- 
formed, that  he  might  be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren," 
Kom.  viii.,  29. 

3.  What  diversity  of  opinion  exists  as  to  whether  Christ  acts 
as  Mediator  in  one  or  both  natures  ? 

The  Eomanists  hold  that  Christ  was  Mediator  only  in  his  hu- 
man nature,  arguing  that  it  is  impossible  that  God  could  mediate 
between  man  and  himself. 

The  very  opposite  has  been  maintained,  viz.,  that  Christ  was 
Mediator  only  in  his  divine  nature. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is,  that  Christ  was  Mediator  as  the 
God-man,  in  both  natures. 

4.  How  may  the  acts  of  Christ  he  classified  with  reference  to 
his  two  natures  ? 

Theologians  have  properly  distinguished  (vide  Turrettin,  in 
loco)  between  the  person  who  acts  and  the  nature  or  inward 
energy  whereby  he  acts. 

Thus  we  affirm  of  the  one  man,  that  he  thinks  and  that  he 
walks.  The  same  person  performs  these  two  classes  of  action  so 
radically  distinct,  in  virtue  of  the  two  natures  embraced  in  his 
single  person.  So  tlie  single  person  of  the  God-man  performs  all 
actions  involving  the  attributes  of  a  divine  nature  in  virtue  of  his 
divine  nature,  and  all  actions  involving  the  attributes  of  a  human 
nature  in  virtue  of  his  human  nature. 

5.  Hoiv  can  it  he  jyroved  that  he  loas  Mediator,  and  acted  as 
such  hoth  in  his  divine  and  human  natures  ? 

1st.  From  the  fact  that  the  dischai-ge  of  each  of  the  three 
great  functions  of  the  mediatorial  office,  the  prophetical,  priestly, 


CHRIST   THE   ONLY   MEDIATOR  291 

and  kingly,  involves  the  attributes  of  both  natures,  as  has  been 
fully  proved  under  question  2 

2d.  From  the  fact  that  the  Bible  attributes  all  his  acts  as 
Mediator  to  the  one  person,  viewed  as  embracing  both  natures. 
The  person  is  often  designated  by  a  term  derived  from  the  attri- 
butes of  one  nature,  while  the  mediatorial  action  attributed  to 
that  person  is  plainly  performed  in  virtue  of  the  other  nature 
embraced  within  it. — See  Acts  xx,,  28  ;  1  Cor.  ii.,  8  ;  Heb. 
ix.,  14. 

3d.  From  the  fact  that  he  was  Mediator  from  the  foundation 
of  the  earth,  (see  Chapter  XIX.,  question  11,)  it  is  clear  that  he 
was  not  Mediator  in  his  human  nature  alone  ;  and  from  the  fact 
that  the  Eternal  Word  became  incarnate,  in  order  to  prepare  him- 
self for  the  full  discharge  of  his  mediatorial  work,  (Heb.  ii.,  17, 
18,)  it  is  equally  plain  that  he  was  not  Mediator  in  his  divine  na- 
ture alone. 

6.  In  ivliat  sense  do  the  Romanists  regard  saints  and  angels 
as  mediators  ? 

They  do  not  attribute  either  to  saints  or  angels  the  work  of 
propitiation  proper.  Yet  they  hold  that  the  merits  of  the  saint 
are  the  ground  and  measure  of  the  efficiency  of  his  intercession, 
as  in  the  case  of  Christ. 

7.  Hoiv  far  do  they  ascribe  a  mediatorial  character  to  their 
priests  ? 

The  Protestant  holds  that  the  church  is  composed  of  a  com- 
pany of  men  united  to  one  another  in  virtue  of  the  immediate 
union  of  each  with  Christ  the  head.  The  Romanist  holds,  on  the 
contrary,  that  each  individual  member  is  united  immediately  to 
the  church,  and  through  the  church  to  Christ.  Their  priests, 
therefore,  of  the  true  apostolic  succession,  subject  to  apostolic 
bishops,  being  the  only  authorized  dispensers  of  the  sacraments, 
and  through  them  of  Christ's  grace,  are  mediators— 

1st.  Between  the  individual  and  Christ,  the  necessary  Jink  of 
union  with  him. 

2d.  In  their  offering  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  making 
therein  a  true  propitiation  for  the  venial  sins  of  the  people. 
Christ's  great  sacrifice  having  atoned  for  original  sin,  and  laid 


292  MEDIATORIAL   OFFICE   OF   CHRI8T. 

the  foundation  for  the  propitiatory  virtue  which  belongs  to  the 
Mass. 

3d.  In  their  being  eminent  intercessors. 

8.  How  can  it  he  proved  that  Christ  is  our  only  Mediator  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  term  ? 

1st.  Direct  testimony  of  Scripture,  1  Tim.  ii.,  5. 

2d.  Because  the  Scriptures  show  forth  Christ  as  fulfiUing  in 
our  behalf  every  mediatorial  function  that  is  necessary,  alike  pro- 
pitiation and  advocacy,  1  John  ii.,  1  ;  on  earth  and  in  heaven, 
Heb.  ix.,  12,  24,  and  vii.,  25. 

3d.  Because  in  virtue  of  the  infinite  dignity  of  his  person  and 
perfection  of  his  nature,  all  these  functions  were  discharged  by 
him  exhaustively,  Heb.  x.,  14  ;  Col.  ii.,  10. 

4th.  Because  there  is  "  complete"  salvation  in  him,  and  no 
salvation  in  any  other,  and  no  man  can  come  to  the  Father  ex- 
cept through  him,  John  xiv.,  6  ;  Acts  iv.,  12. 

5th.  There  is  no  room  for  any  mediator  between  the  individual 
and  Christ,  (1.)  because  he  is  our  "brother"  and  "sympathising 
high  priest,"  who  invites  every  man  immediately  to  himself, 
Matt,  xi.,  28  ;  (2.)  because  the  work  of  drawing  men  to  Christ 
belongs  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  John  vi.,  44,  and  xvi.,  14. 

9.  What  relation  do  the  Scriptures  represent  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  sustaining  to  the  mediatorial  ivorh  of  Christ  ? 

1st.  Begetting  and  replenishing  his  human  nature,  Lidse  1., 
35  ;  ii.,  40  ;  John  iii.,  34  ;  Ps.  xlv.,  7. 

2d.  All  Christ's  mediatorial  functions  were  fulfilled  in  the 
Spirit  ;  his  prophetical  teachings,  his  priestly  sacrifice,  and  his 
kingly  administrations.  The  Spirit  descended  upon  him  at  his 
baptism,  Luke  iii.,  22  ;  and  led  him  into  the  wilderness  to  be 
tempted,  Matt,  iv.,  1  ;  he  returned  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  into 
Galilee,  Luke  iv.,  14  ;  through  the  eternal  Spirit  he  oflered  him- 
self without  spot  to  God,  Heb.  ix.,  14. 

3d.  The  dispensation  of  the  Spirit,  as  "  the  Spirit  of  truth," 
"  the  Sanctifier,"  and  "  the  Comforter, '  vests  in  Christ  as  Medi- 
ator, as  part  of  the  condition  of  the  covenant  of  gi-ace,  John  xv., 
26,  and  xvi.,  7  ;  and  vii.,  39  ;  Acts  ii.,  33. 

4th.  Tlie  Holy  Spirit  thus  dispensed  by  Christ  as  Mediator 


PROPHET,  PRIEST,  AND   KING.  293 

acts  for  him,  and  leads  to  liim  in  teaching,  quickening,  sanctifying, 
preserving,  and  acting  all  grace  in  his  people.  As  Christ  when  on 
earth  led  only  to  the  Father,  so  the  Holy  Ghost  now  leads  only  to 
Christ,  John  xv.,  26,  and  xvi.,  13,  14  ;  Acts  v.,  32  ;  1  Cor.  xii,,  3. 

5th.  While  Christ  as  Mediator  is  said  to  be  our  "TraQaitXrjrog/' 
"advocate,"  ivlth  the  Father,  (1  John  ii.,  1,)  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
said  to  be  our  "  irapdKXrjTog,"  "  advocate,"  translated  "Comforter" 
on  earth,  to  abide  with  us  for  ever,  to  teach  us  the  things  of 
Christ,  and  to  hold  a  controversy  with  the  world,  John  xiv.,  16, 
26,  and  xv.,  26,  and  xvi.,  7-9. 

6th.  While  Christ  is  said  to  be  our  Mediator  to  make  inter- 
cession for  us  in  heaven,  Heb.  vii.,  25  ;  Kom.  viii.,  34,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  forming  thoughts  and  desires  within  us  according  to 
the  will  of  God,  is  said  to  make  intercession  for  us  with  unutter- 
able groanings,  Rom.  viii.,  26,  27. 

7th.  The  sum  of  the  whole  is,  "  We  have  introduction  to  the 
Father  through  the  Son  hy  the  Spirit,"  Bph.  ii.,  18. 

10.  On  what  ground  are  the  threefold  offices  of  prophet,  priest 
and  king  applied  to  Christ  ? 

1st.  Because  these  three  functions  are  all  equally  necessary, 
and  together  exhaust  the  whole  mediatorial  work. 

2d.  Because  the  Bible  ascribes  all  of  these  functions  to  Christ. 
Prophetical,  Deut.  xviii.,  15,  18  ;  compare  Acts  iii.,  22,  and  vii., 
37  ;  Heb.  i.,  2  ;  priestly,  Ps.  ex.,  4,  and  the  whole  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  ;  kingly,  Acts  v.,  31  ;  1  Tim.  vi.,  15  ;  Rev.  xvii.,  14. 

It  is  always  to  be  remembered  that  these  are  not  three  offices, 
but  three  functions  of  the  one  indivisible  office  of  meuiator. 
These  functions  are  abstractly  most  distinguishable,  but  in  the 
concrete  and  in  their  exercise  they  qualify  one  another  in  every 
act.  Thus,  when  he  teaches,  he  is  essentially  a  royal  and  priestly 
teacher,  and  when  he  rules  he  is  a  priestly  and  prophetical  king, 
and  when  he  either  atones  or  intercedes  he  is  a  prophetical  and 
kingly  priest. 

11,  What  is  the  scriptural  sense  of  the  word  prophet  ? 

Its  general  sense  is  one  who  speaks  for  another  with  authority 
as  interpreter.  Thus  Moses  was  prophet  for  his  brother  Aaron, 
Ex.  vii.,  1. 


294  MEDIATORIAL   OFFICE  OF   CHRIST. 

A  prophet  of  God  is  one  qualified  and  authorized  to  speak  for 
God  to  men.    Foretelling  future  events  is  only  incidental. 

12.  How  does  Christ  execute  the  office  of  a  ijrophet  ? 

I.  Immediately  in  his  own  person,  as  when  (1.)  on  earth  with 
his  discij)les,  and  (2.)  the  light  of  the  new  Jerusalem  in  the  midst 
of  the  throne,  Kev.  xxi.,  23. 

II.  Mediately,  Ist,  through  his  Spirit,  (1.)  by  inspiration,  (2.) 
by  spiritual  illumination.  2d.  Thi'ough  the  officers  of  his  church, 
(1.)  those  inspired  as  apostles  and  prophets,  and  (2.)  those  natur- 
ally endowed,  as  the  stated  ministry,  Eph.  iv.  11. 

III.  Both  externally,  as  through  his  word  and  works  ad- 
dressed to  the  understanding,  and, 

IV.  Internally,  by  the  spiritual  illumination  of  the  heart,  1 
John  ii.,  20,  and  v.,  20. 

V.  In  three  grand  successive  stages  of  development,  a  Before 
his  incarnation  ;  b  since  his  incarnation  ;  c  throughout  eternity 
in  glory.  Rev.  vii.,  17,  and  xxi.,  23. 

13.  How  can  it  he  proved  that  he  acted  as  such  before  his  in- 
carnation ? 

1st.  His  divine  title  of  Logos,  "  Word,"  as  by  nature  as  well 
as  office  the  eternal  Eevealer. 

2d.  It  has  been  before  proved  (Chap.  XIX.,  question  11,  and 
Chap.  VIII.,  question  12)  that  he  was  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament economy.  Called  Counselor,  Is.  ix.,  6.  Angel  of  the  Cov- 
enant* Mai.  iii.,  1.     Interpreter,  Job  xxxiii.,  23. 

3d.  The  fact  is  directly  affirmed  in  the  New  Testament,  1 
Pet.  i.,  11. 

14.  What  is  essential  to  the  priestly  office,  or  what  is  a  p>riest 
in  the  scriptural  sense  of  that  term  ? 

As  the  general  idea  of  a  prophet  is,  one  qualified  and  author- 
ized to  speak  for  God  to  men,  so  the  general  idea  of  a  priest  is, 
one  qualified  and  authorized  to  treat  in  behalf  of  men  with  God. 

A  priest,  therefore,  must — 

Ist.  Be  taken  from  among  men  to  represent  them,  Heb.  v., 
1,  2  ;  Ex.  xxviii.,  9,  12,  21,  29. 


MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST.  295 

2d.  Chosen  by  God  as  his  special  election  and  property,  Num. 
xvi.,  5  ;  Heb.  v.,  4. 

3d.  Holy,  morally  pure  and  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  Lev. 
xxi.,  6,  8  ;  Ps.  cvi.,  16  ;  Ex.  xxxix,,  30,  31. 

4th.  They  have  a  right  to  draw  near  to  Jehovah,  and  to  bring 
near,  or  offer  sacrifice,  and  to  make  intercession.  Num.  xvi.,  5  ; 
Ex.  xLx.,  22  ;  Lev.  xvi.,  3,  7,  12,  15. 

The  priest,  therefore,  was  essentially  a  mediator,  admitted 
from  among  men  to  stand  before  God,  for  the  purpose,  1st,  of 
propitiation  by  sacrifice,  Heb.  v.,  1,  2,  3  ;  and,  2d,  of  intercession, 
Luke  i.,  10  ;  Ex.  xxx.,  8  ;  Kev.  v.,  8,  and  viii.,  3,  4. — Taken  from 
Fairbairn's  Typology,  Vol.  II.,  Part  III.,  Chap.  III. 

15,  Prove  from  the  Old  Testament  that  Christ  was  truly  a 
2^riest. 

1st.  It  is  expressly  declared.  Compare  Ps.  ex.,  4,  with  Heb. 
v.,  6,  and  vi.,  20  ;  Zech.  vi.,  13. 

2d.  Priestly  functions  are  ascribed  to  him.  Is.  liii.,  10,  12  ; 
Dan.  ix.,  24,  25. 

3d.  The  whole  meaning  and  virtue  of  the  temple,  of  its  ser- 
vices, and  of  the  Levitical  priesthood  lay  in  the  fact  that  they  were 
all  typical  of  Christ  and  his  work  as  priest.  This  Paul  clearly 
proves  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

16.  Show  from  the  New  Testament  that  all  the  requisites  of  a 

priest  were  found  in  him. 

1st.  Christ  was  a  man  taken  from  among  men  to  represent 
them  before  God,  Heb.  ii.,  16,  and  iv.,  15. 

2d.  He  was  chosen  by  God,  Heb.  v.,  5,  6. 

3d.  He  was  perfectly  holy,  Luke  i.,  35  ;  Heb.  vii.,  26. 

4th.  He  had  the  right  of  the  nearest  access,  and  the  greatest 
influence  with  the  Father,  John  xvi.,  28,  and  xi.,  42  ;  Heb.  i., 
3,  and  ix.,  11,  12,  13,  14,  24. 


17.  Show  that  he  actually  performed  all  the  duties  of  the 


office. 


The  duty  of  the  priest  is  to  mediate  by  (1.)  propitiation,  (2.) 
intercession. 


296  MEDIATORIAL   OFFICES   OF   CHRIST, 

1st.  He  mediated  in  the  general  sense  of  the  word,  John 
xiv.,  6  ;  1  Tim.,  ii.,  5  ;  Heb.  viii.,  6,  and  xii.,  24. 

2d.  He  offered  propitiation,  Eph.  v.,  2  ;  Heb.  ix.,  26,  and 
X.,  12  ;  1  John,  ii.,  2. 

3d.  He  offered  intercession,  Kom.  viii.,  34  ;  Heb,  vii.,  25  j 
1  John,  ii.,  1. 

That  this  propitiatory  work  of  Christ  was  real,  and  not  meta- 
phorical, is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  superseded  the  temple 
services,  which  were  only  typical  of  it.  A  type  and  shadow 
necessarily  presupposes  a  literal  substance,  Heb.  ix.,  10-12,  and 
X.,  1 ;  Col.  ii.,  17. 

18.  What  part  of  Ms  priestly  worlc  did  Christ  execute  on 
earth,  and  lohat  part  in  heaven  ? 

On  earth  he  rendered  obedience,  propitiation,  intercession, 
Heb.  v.,  7-9,  and  ix.,  26,  28  ;  Rom.  v.,  19. 

In  heaven  he  has  presented  his  sacrifice  in  the  most  holy 
place,  and  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us,  Heb.  vii.,  24, 
25,  and  ix.,  12,  24. 

19.  In  what  respects  did  the  priesthood  of  Christ  excel  the 
Aaronic  ? 

1st.  In  the  dignity  of  his  person.  They  were  mere  men.  He 
was  the  eternal  Son.  They  were  sinners  who  had  first  to  make 
atonement  for  their  own  sin,  and  afterwards  for  the  sin  of  the 
people.  He  was  holy,  harmless  and  undefiled,  Heb.  vii.,  26,  27. 
He  was  jjerfect  man,  and  yet  his  access  to  God  was  infinitely 
nearer  than  that  of  any  other  being,  John  x ,  30  ;  Zech.  xiii.,  7. 

2d.  In  the  infinite  value  of  his  sacrifice.  Theirs  could  not 
cleanse  from  sin,  Heb.  x.,  4,  and  were  repeated  continually,  Heb. 
X.,  1-3.  His  sacrifice  was  perfectly  efficacious,  and  once  for  all, 
Heb.  X.,  10-14.  Thus  theirs  were  only  the  shadow  of  his,  Heb. 
X.,  1. 

3d.  In  the  manner  of  their  consecration.  They  without,  he 
with  an  oath,  Heb.  vii.,  20-22. 

4th.  They,  being  many,  succeeded  each  other  by  generation. 
He  continueth  for  ever,  Heb.  vii.,  24. 

5th.    Christ's  priesthood  is  connected  with  a  "greater  and 


MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST,  297 

more  perfect  tabernacle/'  earth  the  outer  court,  heaven  the  true 
sanctuaiy,  Heb,  ix.,  11-24. 

6th.  Christ's  intercession  is  offered  from  a  throne,  Rom.  viii., 
34,  and  Heb.  viii.,  1,  2. 

7th.  While  several  of  the  Old  Testament  servants  of  God 
were  at  once  both  ];)ropliet  and  king,  as  David  ;  and  others  both 
prophet  and  priest,  as  Ezra  ;  Christ  alone,  and  that  in  divine 
perfection,  was  at  once  prophet,  priest  and  king.  Thus  his 
divine  prophetical  and  kingly  joerfections  qualified  and  enhanced 
the  transcendant  virtue  of  every  priestly  act. — Zech.  vi.,  13. 

20.  In  what  sense  was  Christ  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chizedec  ? 

The  Aaronic  priesthood  was  typical  of  Christ,  but  in  two 
principal  respects  it  failed  in  representing  the  great  antitype, 

1st.  It  consisted  of  succeeding  generations  of  mortal  men. 
2d,  It  consisted  of  priests  not  royal. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  on  the  other  hand,  suddenly  brings  Mel- 
chizedec  before  us  in  the  patriarchal  history,  a  royal  priest,  with 
the  significant  names  "  King  of  Righteousness"  and  "  King  of 
Peace,"  Gen.  xiv.,  18-20,  and  as  suddenly  withdraws  him. 
Whence  he  comes  and  whither  he  goes  we  know  not.  As  a  pri- 
vate man  he  had  an  unwritten  history,  like  others.  But  as  a 
royal  priest  he  ever  remains  without  father,  without  mother, 
without  origin,  succession,  or  end  ;  and  therefore,  as  Paul  says, 
Heb.  vii.,  3,  made  beforehand  of  God,  an  exact  type  of  the  eter- 
nity of  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  Ps,  ex.,  4.  The  prophecy  was, 
"  Thou  shalt  be  a  priest/or  ever,"  or  an  eternal  priest  "  after  the 
order  of  Melchizedec," 

The  similitude  of  this  type,  therefore,  included  two  things  : 
1st,  an  everlasting  priesthood ;  2d,  the  union  of  the  kingly  and 
priestly  functions  in  one  person. — Fairbairn's  Typology,  Vol.  II., 
Part  III.,  Chap.  Ill, 

21,  Hoio  can  if  be  proved  that  the  Christian  ministry  is  not 
a  priesthood  ? 

1st,  Human  priests  were  ever  possible  only  as  types,  but  types 
are  possible  only  before  the  revelation  of  the  antitype.     The  pur- 


298  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICES  OF   CHRIST. 

pose  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  was  fulfilled  in  Christ,  and  there- 
fore the  institution  was  for  ever  abolished  by  Christ,  Heb.  x., 

I,  9,  18. 

2d.  Christ  exhaustively  discharges  all  the  duties  and  pur- 
poses of  the  priestly  office,  so  that  any  human  priest  (so  called) 
is  an  antichrist,  Heb.  x.,  14  ;  Col.  ii.,  10. 

3d.  There  can  be  no  need  of  any  priest  to  open  the  way  for 
us  to  Christ.  Because,  while  the  Scriptures  teach  us  that  we 
can  only  go  to  God  by  Christ,  John  xiv.,  6,  they  teach  us  no 
less  emphatically  that  we  must  come  immediately  to  Christ, 
Matt,  xi.,  28 ;  John  v.,  40,  and  vii.,  37 ;  Rev.  iii.,  20,  and 
xxii.,  17. 

4th.  No  priestly  function  is  ever  attributed  to  any  New  Tes- 
tament officer,  inspired  or  uninspired,  extraordinary  or  ordinary. 
The  whole  duty  of  all  these  officers  of  every  kind  is  comprised  in 
the  functions  of  teaching  and  ruling,  1  Cor.  xii.,  28 ;  Eph.  iv., 

II,  12  ;  1  Tim.  iii.,  1-13  ;  1  Pet.  v.,  2. 

5th.  They  are  constantly  called  by  different  designations,  ex- 
pressive of  an  entirely  different  class  of  functions,  as  "  messengers, 
watchmen,  heralds  of  salvation,  teachers,  rulers,  overseers,  shep- 
herds, and  elders." — See  Bib.  Repertory,  Jan.,  1845. 

22.  In  what  sense  are  all  believers  priests  ? 

Although  there  can  not  be  in  the  Christian  church  any  class 
of  priests  standing  between  their  brethren  and  Christ,  yet  in  con- 
sequence of  the  union,  both  federal  and  vital,  which  every  Chris- 
tian sustains  to  Christ,  which  involves  fellowship  with  him  in  all 
of  his  human  graces,  and  in  all  of  his  mediatorial  functions  and 
prerogatives,  every  believer  has  part  in  the  priesthood  of  his  head 
in  such  a  sense  that  he  has  immediate  access  to  God  through 
Christ,  even  into  the  holiest  of  all,  Heb.  x.,  19-22  ;  and  that 
being  sanctified  and  spiritually  qualified,  he  may  there  offer  up, 
as  a  "  holy  priest,"  a  "  royal  priest,"  spiritual  sacrifices,  not  ex- 
piatory, but  the  oblation  of  praise,  supplication  and  thanksgiving, 
through  Jesus  Christ,  and  intercession  for  living  friends,  Heb. 
xiii.,  15  ;  1  Tim.  ii.,  1,  2  ;  1  Pet.  ii.,  5,  9. 

They  are  by  equal  reason  also  prophets  and  kings  in  fellow- 
ship with  Christ,  1  John  ii.,  20  ;  John  xvi.,  13  ;  Rev.  i.,  6,  and 
v.,  10. 


CHAPTER    XXII. 

THE  ATONEMENT  :    ITS   NATURE,   NECESSITY,   PEEFECTION,    AND 

EXTENT, 

I.  The  Nature  of  the  Atonement. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  ivord  atonement,  as  used  in 
Scripture  ? 

The  word  atonement  occurs  but  once  in  tlie  English  transla- 
tion of  the  New  Testament,  Rom.  v.,  11.  But  the  Greek  word, 
of  which  in  that  case  it  is  a  translation,  KaraXXayi],  and  the  verb 
of  the  same  origin  and  meaning,  KaraXXdoao),  (to  change,  ex- 
change, to  reconcile,)  occur  together  ten  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, viz.,  Rom.  v.,  10,  twice  ;  v.,  11 ;  xi.,  15  ;  1  Cor.  vii.,  11  ; 
2  Cor.  v.,  18,  twice,  verse  19,  twice,  and  verse  20.  In  every  case 
the  verb  is  translated  to  reconcile,  and  except  in  Rom.  v.,  11,  the 
noun  is  rendered,  reconciliation.  The  mode  of  this  reconciliation 
being  clearly  indicated,  (Rom.  v.,  10,)  viz.,  "  by  the  death  of  his 
Son." 

Throughout  the  Old  Testament  the  word  atonement  is  con- 
stantly used  to  signify  the  reconciliation  of  God,  by  means  of 
bloody  sacrifices,  to  men  alienated  from  him  by  the  guilt  of  sin. 
The  priest  made  atonement  for  the  transgressors  of  the  law,  by 
sacrifices,  and  it  was  forgiven  them,  Lev.  iv.,  20 ;  v.,  6  ;  vi.,  7 ; 
xii.,  8  ;  xiv.,  18  ;  Num.  xv.,  25.  On  the  great  "  day  of  atone- 
ment" the  high  priest  made  atonement,  first,  for  his  own  sin,  by 
the  sacrifice  of  a  bullock,  and  then  for  the  sins  of  all  the  people, 
by  the  sacrifice  of  a  goat ;  and  then  the  sins  thus  atoned  for  were 
confessed  and  laid  upon  the  head  of  the  live  goat,  and  carried 
away  by  him  into  oblivion. — Lev.  xvi.,  6-22. 

2.  Hoiu  do  the  words  atonement  and  satisfaction  differ  ? 
Satisfaction  is  the  more  specific  term  ;  atonement  is  the  re- 


300  CHRIST   MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST. 

conciliation  of  God  to  man  by  the  death  of  his  Son.  Satisfaction 
expresses  the  relation  which  the  work  of  Christ  sustains  to  the 
demands  of  God's  law  and  justice. 

3.  Wherein  does  the  satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ  consist  ? 

By  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  Christ  assumes 
precisely  the  place  and  all  the  obligations  of  his  peojjle,  under  the 
broken  and  unsatisfied  covenant  of  works.  These  obligations 
were  evidently,  1st,  perfect  obedience  as  the  condition  of  reward  ; 
and,  2d,  the  penalty  of  death  incurred  by  the  failure  of  obedience 
both  in  their  representative  Adam  and  in  their  own  persons. 

4.  How  may  it  he  p^^oted  that  the  "  active  obedience"  of 
Christ  to  the  precepts  of  the  laio  enters  into  his  satisfaction  ? 

1st.  The  necessity  of  the  case.  The  position  of  Christ  was 
that  of  second  Adam,  1  Cor.  xv.,  22,  45.  He  came  to  fulfill  the 
law  in  our  behalf.  But  the  law  demands  obedience  as  its  con- 
dition of  life,  Kom.  x.,  5.     Here  the  first  Adam  had  failed. 

2d.  The  fixed  meaning  of  the  word  diicaioavvT],  righteousness, 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  perfect  conformity  to  the  whole  law, 
Kom.  vi.,  13,  16  ;  viii.,  4  ;  x.,  4  ;  Phil,  iii.,  6  ;  Tit.  iii.,  5  ;  1 
John  ii.,  29.  Yet  Christ  is  said  to  be  for  us,  "  the  end  of  the  law 
for  righteousness,"  Rom.  x.,  4,  and  we  are  said  to  be  made,  "  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him,"  2  Cor.  v.,  21. 

3d.  It  is  expressly  asserted  in  Rom.  v.,  19,  where  Adam's  dis- 
obedience, which  subjected  us  to  guilt,  is  contrasted  with  the 
obedience  of  Christ,  whereby  we  are  made  righteous. 

5.  What  is  the  Socinian  view  as  to  the  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment ? 

They  deny,  Ist,  of  sin,  that  it  inherently,  for  its  own  sake, 
deserves  punishment,  and,  2d,  of  God,  that  his  infinitely  perfect 
righteousness  determines  him  to  demand  the  punishment  of  all 
sin.  On  the  other  hand  they  hold  that  God  may,  in  perfect  con- 
sistency with  his  benevolent  care  for  the  best  interests  of  his  gen- 
eral moral  government,  forgive  sin  at  any  time,  upon  the  repent- 
ance of  the  sinner.  The  death  of  Christ,  therefore,  was  designed 
simply  to  soften  the  heart,  and  to  encourage  the  confidence  of  the 


NATURE   OF   HIS   ATONEMENT.  301 

sinner  in  God,  and  so  dispose  him  to  repentance,  by  that  eminent 
exhibition  of  divine  love. — Cat.  Racov.,  pp.  261-268. 

6.  What  is  the  Governmental  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
atonement  ? 

The  advocates  of  this  theory,  which  is  distinctively  New  En- 
gland and  New  School,  agree  with  the  Socinians  in  their  funda- 
mental i^ropositions. 

1st.  Thai  sin  does  not  intrinsically  deserve  punishment,  i.  e., 
the  true  end  of  punishment  is  rather  to  prevent  sin,  than  to  sat- 
isfy vindicatory  justice,  and,  2d,  that  there  is  no  principle  in  God 
which  demands  the  punishment  of  all  sin  for  its  own  sake  alone. 

On  the  other  hand,  they  differ  from  the  Socinians  in  denying 
that  God  can  consistently  forgive  sin  upon  the  mere  repentance 
of  the  sinner,  since  such  a  habit,  on  his  part,  would  be  inconsis- 
tent with  the  good  government  of  the  universe,  by  removing  all 
the  restraints  which  fear  of  punishment  presents  to  sin.  They  re- 
gard the  sufferings  of  Christ,  therefore,  as  designed  to  make  a 
moral  impression  upon  the  universe,  by  the  emphatic  display  of 
God's  determination  to  punish  sin,  and  thus  to  make  the  forgive- 
ness of  sinful  men  consistent  with  the  good  government  of  the 
moral  universe  as  a  whole. 

7.  Hoio  may  that  system  be  disproved  ? 

Ist.  This  system  regards  the  ill  desert  of  sin  as  resulting  from 
its  tendency  to  produce  disorder  in  the  universe.  But  it  is  an 
ultimate  fact  of  consciousness  that  virtue  intrinsically  deserves 
well,  and  that  sin  intrinsically  is  ill  desert.  (1.)  Every  awakened 
conscience  feels  this.  (2.)  God  constantly  asserts  it,  Jer.  xliv., 
4  ;  Deut.  xxv.,  16.  (3.)  It  is  implied  in  all  ]3unishment.  For 
any  man  to  be  hung  for  the  good  of  the  community  is  murder, 
and  for  any  soul  to  be  damned  for  the  sake  of  an  example  would 
be  an  iniinite  outrage. 

2d.  This  system  resolves  the  justice  of  God  into  a  mode  of  his 
universal  benevolence,  and  denies  that  his  perfect  righteousness 
unchangeably  demands  the  punishment  of  all  sin,  simply  as  such, 
in  exact  proportion  to  its  ill  desert.  This  is  contrary  to  Scrip- 
tures, Heb.  i.  13  ;  Ps.  v.,  4,  5  ;  Prov.  xvii.,  15  ;  Heb.  xii.,  29,  vi., 
10  ;  Rom.  iii.,  5  ;  2  Thess.  i.,  6,  8. 


302  CHRIST   MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST. 

3d.  It  rejjresents  God  as  deriving  the  motives  of  his  acts  from 
the  exigencies  of  his  creation,  and  not  from  the  inherent  princi- 
ples of  his  own  nature,  which  is  derogatory  to  his  sovereignty  and 
independence. 

4th.  It  degrades  the  infinite  work  of  Christ  to  the  poor  level 
of  a  governmental  adjustment,  whereas  it  was  the  most  glorious 
exhibition  of  eternal  principles. 

5th.  This  system  makes  the  atonement  a  theatrical  inculca- 
tion of  principles,  which  were  not  truly  involved  in  the  case.  For 
if  Christ  died,  not  that  the  sins  of  his  people  which  he  bore,  sliould 
be  truly  punished  in  him,  but  only  to  manifest  to  the  moral  uni- 
verse that  sin  must  be  punished,  it  is  very  evident  that  then  sin 
was  not  punished  in  this  case,  and  that  Christ's  death  conse- 
quently could  not  teach  the  really  intelligent  portion  of  the  uni- 
verse any  such  lesson  as  that  sin  must  be  punished,  but  rather 
the  reverse. 

6th.  It  has  no  support  in  Scripture,  it  is  advocated  simply  on 
the  principles  of  rational  science,  so  called. 

7th.  It  is  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  positive  teaching 
of  the  Scriptures  respecting  the  work  of  Christ,  Is.  liii. ;  Gal.  iii., 
13  ;  Kom.  viii.,  3  ;  1  Pet.  ii.,  24  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  21 ;  Heb.  ix.,  28. 
For  only  through  this  satisfaction  to  justice  was  it  possible  for 
God  to  be  both  just  and  the  justifier  of  the  transgressor,  Rom. 
iii.,  26. 

8th.  If  Christ's  death  is  merely  designed  to  produce  a  moral 
impression  on  the  universe  ;  if  it  did  not  really  render  satisfaction 
to  divine  justice,  in  what  sense  can  we  be  said  to  be  united  to 
Christ,  to  die  with  him,  or  to  rise  again  with  him  ?  "  What  is 
meant  by  living  by  faith,  of  which  he  is  the  object  ?  The 
fact  is,  this  theory  changes  the  whole  nature  of  the  gospel ; 
the  nature  of  faith,  and  of  justification,  the  mode  of  access 
to  God,  our  relation  to  Christ,  and  the  inward  exercises  of 
communion  with  him." — Hodge's  Review  of  Beman  on  the  Atone- 
ment. 

8.  State  the  common  orthodox  docti'ine  of  the  atonement. 

The  Socinian  theory  sets  forth  the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  de- 
signed to  produce  a  moral  effect  upon  the  heart  of  the  individual 
sinner. 


NATURE   OP   HIS  ATONEMENT.  303 

The  governmental  theory  claims  that  that  work  was  designed 
to  produce  a  moral  eiFect  upon  the  intelligent  universe. 

The  orthodox  view,  while  embracing  both  of  the  above  as 
incidental  ends,  maintains  that  the  immediate  and  chief  end  of 
Christ's  work  was  to  satisfy  that  essential  principle  of  the  divine 
nature  which  demands  the  punishment  of  sin.  This  theory  em- 
braces the  following  points  : 

"  1st.  Sin  for  its  own  sake  deserves  the  wi-ath  and  curse  of  God. 
2d.  God  is  disposed,  from  the  very  excellence  of  his  nature,  to  treat 
his  creatures  as  they  deserve.  3d.  To  satisfy  the  righteous  judg- 
ment of  God,  his  Son  assumed  our  nature,  was  made  under  the 
law,  fulfilled  all  righteousness,  and  bore  the  punishment  of  our 
sins.  4th.  By  his  righteousness,  those  who  believe  are  consti- 
tuted righteous,  his  merit  being  so  imputed  to  them  that  they 
are  regarded  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God." — Hodge's  Essays, 
p.  131. 

9.  In  luhat  sense  tvere  Christ's  sufferings  penal,  and  tvhat  is 
the  difference  between  calamity,  chastisement,  and  punishment  ? 

Calamity  is  suffering,  which  has  no  relation  to  sin  ;  chastise- 
ment, that  suffering  which  is'  designed  for  the  improvement  of  the 
sufferer  ;  j)unishment,  that  which  is  designed  for  the  satisfaction 
of  justice.  The  penalty  of  the  law  is  that  suffering  which  the 
law  demands  as  a  satisfaction  to  justice  for  the  violation  of  its 
commands. — Hodge's  Essays,  p.  152. 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  were  penal,  therefore,  because  he  suf- 
fered precisely  that  kind  and  degree  of  evil  that  divine  justice 
demanded  as  a  complete  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  all  his 
people. — Is.  liii.  ;  Gal.  iii.,  13  ;  Matt,  xx.,  28  ;  Kom.  viii.,  3  ;  2 
Cor.,  v.,  21.  His  sufferings  are  said  to  have  been  penal  in  dis- 
tinction, 1st,,  to  calamity  or  chastisement ;  2d,  to  pecuniary  sat- 
isfaction. 

10.  State  the  difference  between  pecuniary  and  penal  satis- 
faction. 

"  Ist.  In  the  one  case,  the  demand  is  upon  the  thing  due  ;  in 
the  other,  it  is  upon  the  person  of  the  criminal.  2d.  In  the  one, 
the  demand  is  for  an  exact  equivalent — a  piece  of  money  in  the 
hands  of  a  king  is  of  no  more  value  than  in  the  hands  of  a  peas- 


304  CHRIST    MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST. 

ant ;  in  the  other  case,  the  demand  being  upon  the  person,  and 
for  the  satisfaction  of  justice,  must  be  satisfied  by  very  different 
kinds  and  degrees  of  punishment,  depending  upon  the  dignity  of 
the  person  and  the  conditions  of  the  law.  3d.  The  creditor  is 
bound  to  accept  the  payment  of  the  debt,  no  matter  by  whom 
offered  ;  whereas,  in  the  case  of  crime,  the  sovereign  is  neither 
bound  to  provide  a  substitute,  nor .  to  accept  one  when  offered. 
4th.  Hence  penal  satisfaction  does  not  ipso  facto  liberate  ;  the 
acceptance  is  a  matter  of  free  grace,  and  is  determined  by  arrange- 
ment or  cov^ant." — Hodge's  Essays,  pp.  165,  166. 

11.  What  is  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  in  what  sense  did 
Christ  bear  that  p)enalty  ? 

"  The  penalty  of  the  law  in  Scripture  is  called  '  death,' 
which  includes  every  kind  of  evil  inflicted  by  divine  justice  in 
punishment  of  sin,  and  inasmuch  as  Christ  suffered  such  evil, 
and  to  such  a  degree  as  fully  satisfied  divine  justice,  he  suffered 
what  the  Scriptures  call  the  penalty  of  the  law.  It  is  not  any 
specific  kind  or  degree  of  suffering.  The  penalty  in  the  case  of 
the  individual  sinner  involves  remorse,  despair,  and  eternal  ban- 
ishment from  God  ;  in  the  case  of  Christ,  they  involved  none  of 
these.  It  is  not  the  nature,  but  the  relation  of  sufferings  to  the 
law  that  gives  them  their  distinctive  value."  It  is  not  the  de- 
gi-ee  of  the  sufferings  merely,  but  the  dignity  of  the  sufferer  also, 
which  determines  their  sin-atoning  efficacy. — Hodge's  Essays, 
p.  152. 

Our  standards  declare  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  case 
of  Christ  includes  "  the  miseries  of  this  life,  the  wrath  of  God, 
the  accursed  death  of  the  cross,  and  continuance  under  the  power 
of  death  for  a  time." 

12.  In  what  sense  and  on  lohat  ground  ivere  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  equivalent  to  the  sufferings  of  all  his  people  ? 

They  were  unutterably  gi-eat,  and  equivalent  to  the  sufferings 
of  all  his  people,  not  in  a  pecuniary  sense  as  precisely  a  quid  pro 
quo,  both  in  kind  and  degree  :  but  in  a  penal  sense,  as  in  the 
judgment  of  God  fully  satisfying  in  their  behalf  all  the  penal 
claims  of  the  law. 


NATUEE   OF    HIS   ATONEMENT.  305 

The  ground  upon  which  God  judges  the  suffeiings  of  Christ 
to  be,  in  a  penal  sense,  equivalent  to  the  sufferings  of  all  his  peo- 
ple, is  not  the  nature  or  degree  of  that  suffering,  but  the  dignity 
of  the  sufferer.  Those  sufferings,  though  endured  in  a  finite  na- 
ture, were  of  infinite  value,  because  of  the  infinite  dignity  of  his 
person. 

13.  In  lohat  sense  were  Christ's  sufferings  vicarious,  and  in 
what  sense  was  he  the  substitute  of  his  people  ? 

A  substitute  is  one  who  acts  or  suffers  in  the  place  of  or  in  be- 
half of  another,  and  that  is,  vicai'ious  obedience  or  suffering  which 
is  rendered  or  endured  by  the  substitute  in  the  place  of  another. 
In  this  sense  Christ  is  our  substitute,  and  his  sufferings  vica- 
rious.—Eom.  v.,  8  ;  Matt,  xx.,  28  ;  1  Tim.  ii.,  6  ;  1  Pet.  ii.,  24  ; 
iii.,  18  ;  Isa.  liii.,  6. 

14.  What  were  the  qualifications  necessary  for  such  a  sub- 
stitute ? 

1st.  That  he  should  be  personally  independent  of  the  law, 
owing  it  nothing  on  his  own  account. 

2d.  That,  possessing  the  same  identical  nature  with  man,  he 
might  be  made  under  the  law,  and  introduced  into  precisely  the 
same  legal  and  covenant  relations  sustained  by  those  for  whom 
he  stood. 

3d.  That  his  person  should  possess  infinite  dignity,  in  order 
to  give  an  infinite  moral  value  to  his  finite  sufferings. 

4th.  That  there  shoidd  be  a  sovereign  designation  upon  the 
part  of  the  Father,  and  a  voluntary  assumption  on  the  j)art  of 
the  Son,  of  the  position  of  covenanted  head  and  legal  representa- 
tive of  his  elect. 

15.  What  is  the  Scriptural  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  to  bear 
sin  or  iniquity  ?"  and  show  what  light  is  thence  thrown  on  the 
nature  of  the  atonement. 

The  phrase,  "  to  bear  sin  or  iniquity,"  has  a  perfectly  definite 
usage,  and  it  signifies  to  bear  the  guilt  of  sin,  or  the  penal  con- 
sequences attached  by  the  law  to  sin. — Lev.  v.,  1 ;  x.,  17  ;  xvi., 
22  ;  XX.,  20  ;  Num.  xviii.,  22  ;  Ezek.  xviii.,  19,  20. 

Of  course,  this  language,  which  is  applied  frequently  to  Christ, 

20 


306  CHRIST   MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST. 

(Heb.  ix.,  28  ;   Isa.  liii.,  6,  11,  12  ;    1  Pet.  ii,,  24,)  precisely  de- 
fines the  relation  of  his  sufferings  to  the  penalty  of  the  law. 

16.  In  ivhat  sense  was  Christ  an  offering  for  sin  ? 

Both  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  familiar  with  sacrifices  for  sin, 
and  both  recognized  in  them  precisely  the  same  transference  of 
guilt  from  the  ofierer  to  the  victim,  and  the  extinguishment  of 
that  guilt  by  the  death  of  the  victim.  This  was  the  definite 
sense  of  the  phrase  universally  received  bv  those  to  whom  the 
apostle  wrote. 

This  is  plain — • 

1st.  Because  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  was  no  re- 
mission, Heb.  ix.,  22.  "  For  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood, 
and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  an  atonement 
for  your  souls,"  Lev.  xvii.,  11.     Life  was  substituted  for  life. 

2d.  The  sacrifice  must  be  spotless.  Lev.  iii.,  1.  A  spotless 
life  must  be  ofiered  in  place  of  one  forfeited  by  the  guilt  of  sin. 

3d.  The  offerer  laid  his  hands  upon  the  victim,  which  act  was 
symbolical  of  transfer,  Lev.  i.,  4  ;  iii.,  2  ;  iv.,  4,  15  ;  2  Chron. 
xxix.,  23;  and  confessed  his  sins,  and  his  sins  were  laid  upon  the 
victim.  Lev.  xvi.,  21. 

All  this  was  said  to  be  the  shadow  of  good  things  to  come, 
while  the  substance  is  Christ.  He  is  called  "  the  Lamb  of  God," 
"  Lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot,"  "  his  blood  cleanseth 
from  all  sin,"  "his  soul  is  an  offering  for  sin,"  Isa.  liii.,  10;  1  John 
i.,  7  ;  John  i.,  29  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  19.— Hodge's  Essays,  p.  149  ;  Fair- 
bairn's  Typology,  Vol.  II.,  p.  221. 

17.  State  the  argument  on  this  subject  derived  from  those 
passages  lohich  ascribe  our  salvation  to  the  death  or  blood  of 
Christ. 

See  1  Pet.  i.,  19  ;  Kev.  v.,  9  ;  1  John  i.,  7  ;  Kom.  v.,  9,  10  ; 
Heb.  ix.,  15  ;  ii.,  9,  14,  15.  In  these  and  similar  passages  it  is 
taught  that  the  "  death"  or  "blood  of  Christ"  "  redeems  us," 
"cleanses  us  from  sin,"  "justifies  tis,"  "reconciles  ics  to  God," 
"delivers  us  from  bondage,"  "redeems  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law."  This  language  can  mean  nothing,  if  the  sole  purpose  of 
Christ's  death  was  to  produce  a  moral  impression  either  upon  the 
individual  sinner,  or  upon  the  universe  as  a  common  subject  of 


NATURE    OF    HIS    ATONEMENT.  307 

divine  government.  But  their  use  is  appropriate,  if  the  death  of 
Christ  really  satisfies  God's  justice,  and  by  satisfying  the  penalty 
of  the  law  removes,  by  ending,  the  guilt,  or  legal  obligations  of 
our  sins. 

18.  In  what  sense  is  Christ  said  to  have  purchased  or  re- 
deemed his  church  ? 

Two  Greek  words  are  translated  by  the  word  redeem  in  our 
version,  1st,  XvTgow^  to  release  for  a  ransom,  mid.,  to  ransom, 
redeem.  2d.  t'^ayopa^w,  to  buy  out  of  the  hands  of,  to  redeem,  buy 
off.  These,  of  course,  when  applied  to  the  work  of  Christ,  1  Pet. 
i.,  18,  etc.,  are  not  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  a  pecuniary 
transaction,  i.  e.,  purchase  by  the  payment  of  an  exact  equivalent 
in  value.  But  if  they  mean  any  thing  they  must  teach  that  Christ 
has  acquired  a  right  to  his  church  by  doing  and  suifering  that 
which  God  has  demanded  as  the  condition  of  its  deliverance  and 
his  possession.  It  is  expressly  said  that  the  ransom  demanded  was 
his  blood,  and  that  the  condition  from  which  his  church  was 
bought  off  was  that  of  subjection  to  the  curse  of  the  law. 

19.  How  can  the  Bible  doctrine  of  the  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment be  further  proved  from  the  revealed  fact  that  Christ  offered 
himself  to  God  as  our  High  Foxiest  ? 

That  he  is  truly  a  priest,  and  that  he  fulfilled  all  the  func- 
tions of  that  office  has  been  fully  proved  above,  Chapter  XXI., 
questions  14-17.  Now  when  an  Israelite  sinned  he  went  to  the 
priest,  who,  taking  a  victim,  offered  it  to  God,  life  for  life,  and 
thus  making  atonement  for  sin  it  was  forgiven  the  transgressor, 
Lev.  iv.,  20,  26,  31  ;  v.,  10,  18.  "  Therefore  it  is  of  necessity 
that  this  man  have  somewhat  also  to  offer,"  and  "  not  by  the  blood 
of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood  he  hath  obtained  an  eter- 
nal redemption  for  us,"  Heb,  viii.,  3  ;  ix.,  12.  The  priest  never 
offered  the  sacrifice  to  obtain  the  possibility  of  salvation  for  his 
client,  nor  to  manifest  the  determination  of  God  to  punish  sin,  but 
always  to  obtain  remission  of  the  penalty. 

20.  Hoio  may  it  be  shown  that  the  substitution  of  Christ  in 
the  place  of  his  people  did  not  cause  him  to  become  personally  a 

sinner. 


308  CHRIST   MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST. 

Keason  and  Scripture  alike  teach  that  the  personal  character 
of  one  man  can  never  be  transferee!  to  another,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  legal  responsibility,  or  liability  to  punishment,  un- 
der which  one  man's  labors  may  be  transferred  to  another,  when- 
soever sovereign  authority  recognizes  one  as  legally  representing 
the  other.  Christ  is  said  (2  Cor.  v.,  21)  "to  be  made  sin  for  us" 
in  the  same  sense  that  we  are  said  "  to  be  made  the  righteousness 
of  God  in  him."  When  we  are  justified,  or  declared  to  be  righte- 
ous for  Christ's  sake,  we  are  no  less  than  before  personally  sinners 
in  heart  and  habit,  because  it  is  his  legal  merit,  and  not  his  per- 
sonal liolinc^s,  that  is  counted  ours.  So  Christ  remains  no  less 
infinitely  "holy,  harmless,  and  undefiled,"  when  the  chastise- 
ment of  our  sins  is  laid  upon  him,  or  their  legal  responsibility 
counted  his. 

21.  Show  that  the  doctrine  of  a  full  satisfaction  to  justice  does 
not  desti'oy  the  gratuitous  nature  of  salvation. 

1st.  Christ  did  not  die  to  make  the  Father  love  the  elect,  but 
was  given  to  die  because  of  that  love,  John  iii.,  16  ;  1  John  iv.,  9. 

2d.  Chi'ist  made  full  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  in  order  to 
render  the  exercise  of  love  consistent  with  justice,  Eom.  iii.,  26  ; 
Ps.  Ixxxv.,  10.  The  greater  the  obstacle,  and  the  more  costly  the 
price  demanded  of  love  by  justice,  the  greater  the  love  and  the 
freer.     On  this  ground  God  commendeth  his  love,  Rom.  v.,  8. 

3d.  God  the  Father  and  God  the  Son  are  one  God,  identical 
in  nature,  moved  by  the  same  love,  and  exacting  the  same  satis- 
faction. 

4 til.  Penal  satisfaction  differs  from  pecuniary.  If  a  sovereign 
appoints  or  accepts  a  substitute  it  is  all  of  grace. 

.5th.  To  Christ,  as  Mediator,  the  purchased  salvation  of  his 
people  belongs  of  right,  from  the  terms  of  the  eternal  covenant, 
but  to  us  that  salvation  is  given  in  all  its  elements,  stages,  and 
instrumentalities  only  as  a  free  and  sovereign  favor.  The  gift 
is  gratuitous  if  the  beneficiary  has  no  shadow  of  claim  to  it, 
and  if  no  conditions  are  exacted  of  him.  The  less  worthy 
the  beneficiaiy  is,  and  the  more  difficult  the  conditions  which 
justice  exacts  of  the  giver,  the  more  eminently  gratuitous  the 
gift  is. 


NECESSITY   OF   THE   ATONEMENT.  309 

II.    The    NECESSITY    OF    THE    A.TONEMENT. 

22.  What  vieio  do  the  Socinians  entertain  as  to  the  ground 
of  the  necessity  of  Christ's  death  ? 

Every  man's  view  of  the  grounds  upon  which  the  necessity  of 
Christ's  atoning  work  rests  must  be  determined  by  his  view  as  to 
its  nature.  For  the  Socinian  view,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment, see  above,  question  5.  The  necessity  of  the  atonement  ac- 
cording to  this  view,  therefore,  results  simply  in  the  indisposition 
of  men  to  repent,  and  the  necessity  of  providing  motives  adequate 
to  that  end. 

23.  On  lohat  grounds  do  those  ivho  maintain  the  governmental 
theory  of  the  atonement  hold  it  to  have  been  necessary  ? 

See  above,  question  6.  According  to  this  view  the  necessity 
of  the  atonement  springs  from  the  exigencies  of  God's  general, 
moral  government,  which  demand  uniform  and  certain  punish- 
ment as  a  warning  to  the  subject,  and  thus  as  a  restraint  upon  sin. 

24.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  those  ivho  admit  only  a  hypotheti- 
cal necessity  for  the  atonement  ? 

These  truly  hold  that  the  necessity  for  the  atonement  is  in 
God,  but  they  err  in  maintaining  that  this  necessity  springs  from 
his  mere  loill,  and  not  from  his  nature,  and  that  God  sovereignly 
chose  this  as  one  of  many  ways  of  reconciling  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  with  himself  and  his  moral  government. 

25.  What  is  the  Scriptural  view  of  the  ground  of  this  neces- 
sity ? 

1st.  Sin  itself  intrinsically  deserves  punishment.  2d.  God  is, 
by  the  perfection  of  his  own  righteous  nature,  immutably  de- 
termined to  punish  all  sin  as  intrinsically  hateful.  3d.  The 
necessity  for  the  atonement,  therefore,  lies  in  God's  infinite,  wise, 
holy,  just,  free,  and  immutable  nature. 

26.  Hoiv  can  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  atonement  be  proved, 
i.  e.,  on  the  assumption  that  sin  is  to  be  pardoned  ? 

Every  argument  set  forth  above  to  prove  that  the  atonement 


310  CHRIST   MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST. 

was  designed  to  satisfy  divine  justice  for  the  sins  of  Christ's  peo- 
ple, also  clearly  proves  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to  the  end 
of  their  salvation.  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  an  unnecessary 
"  ransom,"  or  "  satisfaction,"  or  "  penal  sufferings." 

This  is  further  evident  from,  1st.  The  inherent  ill  desert  of  sin. 
2d.  The  inherent  righteousness  of  Grod.  3d.  The  nature  of  the 
human  conscience,  which  will  not  be  pacified  unless  justice  be 
satisfied.  4.  From  the  nature  of  God  as  infinitely  merciful,  and 
from  the  nature  of  the  gospel  as  an  eminent  provision  of  mercy. 
Suffering  not  necessaiy  would  be  inconsistent  with  both.  5th. 
From  the  infinite  greatness  and  glory  of  the  sufferer.  "  God  so 
loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son."  If  that  gift 
was  not  absolutely  necessary  to  our  salvation,  it  would  be  no  real 
measure  of  God's  love  for  us.  6th.  God  is  limited  by  no  impos- 
sibilities without  himself,  but  it  is  his  glory  that  his  will  is 
always  freely  determined  by  the  immutable  perfections  of  his 
nature. 

III.  The  Perfection  of  the  Atonement. 

27.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  perfection  of  the 
atonement  'i 

The  Komish  theologians  admit  that  the  value  of  Christ's 
death  is  infinite  ;  their  frequent  expression  is,  that  "  one  drop  of 
Christ's  blood  is  sufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world." 
Yet  they  hold  that  the  direct  effect  of  Christ's  satisfaction  is  only 
to  atone  for  original  sin,  and  to  redeem  believers  from  the  eternal 
punishment  thereof.  All  earthly  sorrows  they  regard  rather  in  the 
light  of  expiations  than  of  chastisements.  All  sins  committed 
after  baptism  must  be  expiated  by  sufferings  endured  by  the  be- 
liever in  person.  Thus  they  attribute  to  the  repeated  sacrifice  of 
Christ's  person  in  the  Mass,  to  the  pains  of  penance  and  purgatory, 
a  real  sin-atoning  efficacy.  They  also  hold  that  the  death  of 
Christ  has  secured  an  infinite  fund  of  merit,  the  dispensation  of 
which  is  intrusted  to  the  church,  whence  flows  the  efficiency  of 
priestly  absolution,  sacramental  grace,  and  indulgences. — See  Cat. 
Rom.,  Part  II.,  Chapters  IV.  and  V.,  and  Decrees  of  Council  of 
Trent,  Sess.  13  and  14. 


PERFECTION    OF    THE    ATONEMENT.  311 

28.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bemonstrants  or  Dutch  dis- 
ciples of  Arminius  on  this  subject  ? 

They  taught  that  the  sufficiency  of  Christ's  sacrifice  to  atone 
for  the  sins  of  all  men  resulted  from  the  free  and  gracious  estima- 
tion of  it  as  sufficient  by  God. — Limborch's  Theologia  Chris- 
tiana 3,  22.5.  and  21,  6. 

29.  What  is  the  orthodox  doctrine  on  this  point  ? 

That  although  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  precisely, 
either  in  kind  or  degree,  the  same  that  justice  would  have  de- 
manded of  his  people  in  person,  yet  he  suffered  precisely  that 
kind  and  degree  of  evil  which  the  infinitely  righteous  judge  de- 
manded, as  in  his  infinitely  exalted  person  a  satisfaction  equiva- 
lent in  the  rigor  of  justice  to  the  penalty  denounced  by  the  law 
upon  all  his  people,  for  whom  he  died. 

His  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  for  the  sins  of  his  people, 
therefore,  was  perfect,  1st,  intrinsically,  and  in  the  rigor  of  jus- 
tice ;  2d,  as  so  satisfying  the  law  that  it  demands  no  penal  evils 
whatsoever  of  believers,  all  their  sufferings  being  simply  discipli- 
nary ;  3d,  while  it  was  perfect  in  securing  the  salvation  of  all  his 
elect,  it  is  perfect  also  in  its  sufficiency  for  all  men,  thus  laying 
the  foundation  for  the  bona  fide  offer  of  an  interest  in  his  salva- 
tion to  all  who  will  accept  it. 

This  absolute  perfection  of  the  atonement  is  proved,  1st,  by 
the  infinite  dignity  of  the  sufferer,  and  the  consequent  infinite 
moral  value  of  his  sufferings. 

2d.  Paul  proves  the  insufficiency  of  the  Old  Testament  sacri- 
fices from  the  necessity  of  their  repetition,  and  establishes  the 
fact  that  the  one  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  perfect,  since  it  is  never  re- 
peated, Heb.  ix.,  25-28  ;  x.,  1-14. 

3d.  Christ  stood  in  the  law  place  of  his  people,  having  assumed 
all  their  legal  liabilities,  but  God  set  his  seal  publicly  to  his  ap- 
probation of  Christ's  work  as  a  perfect  satisfaction  to  justice  in 
behalf  of  his  elect,  in  that  he  raised  him  from  the  dead  and  set 
him  at  his  own  right  hand,  1  Cor.,  xv.,  20-23  ;  Phil,  ii.,  5-11  ; 
1  Pet.,  i.,  3-5. 

4th.  Our  perfected  redemption  is  always  referred  in  Scripture 
to  the  death  of  Christ.     The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  from 


312  CHRIST   MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST. 

all  sin.  Both  the  merit  of  works  and  the  expiatory  virtue  of  pen- 
ance are  destitute  of  all  Scriptural  evidence,  and  are  repugnant 
to  all  else  the  Scriptures  teach. 

IV.  The  Extent  of  the  Atonement. 

30.  What  is  the  precise  point  in  dispute  between  the  differ- 
ent parties  in  the  Church  on  this  subject  ? 

All  parties  agree,  1st,  that  the  atonement  accomplished  hy 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  was  sufficient  in  its  moral  value  to  satisfy 
justice  for  the  sins  of  all  men ;  and,  2d,  that  it  was  exactly 
adapted  to  meet  the  requisitions  of  justice,  growing  out  of  the 
legal  relations  of  all  men.  The  only  debate  concerns  the  pur- 
pose of  Christ  in  dying,  and  of  the  Father  in  giving  his  Son 
to  die. 

31.  What  is  the  Arminian  view  as  to  the  design  of  God  in 
the  gift  of  his  So7i  ? 

That  he  should  die  in  the  place  and  stead  of  all  men  as  a  sac- 
rificial oblation,  by  which  satisfaction  is  made  for  the  sins  of  every 
individual,  so  that  they  become  remissible  upon  the  terms  of  the 
evangelical  covenant,  i.  e.,  upon  the  condition  of  faith. — Wat- 
son's Theo.  Institutes,  Part  II.,  Chap.  XXV. 

The  design  of  God,  then,  was,  1st,  that  Christ  should  die  for 
all  men  ;  2d,  that  by  the  satisfaction  rendered  by  his  death  the 
salvation  of  all  men  should  be  made  possible. 

32.  What  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

Christ  came  in  fulfillment  of  the  eternal  covenant  of  the 
Father  with  the  Son.  He  assumed  the  federal  and  criminal  rela- 
tions of  his  people  to  the  law  of  works,  and  it  was  provided  that 
his  people  should  receive  all  the  benefits  of  his  merits. 

The  design  of  God  in  the  atonement,  then,  was — 

Ist.  That  Christ  should  bear  the  penalty  which  justice  de- 
nounced upon  his  own  people. 

2d.  That  he  should  not  merely  make  the  salvation  of  those 
for  whom  he  died  possible,  but  that  he  should  actually  achieve  it 
for  them,  and  freely  present  it  to  them. 


EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  313 

The  Arininian  view,  therefore,  differs  from  the  Calvinistic  in 
two  points.  They  maintain  that  Christ  died,  1st,  for  the  relief 
of  all  men  ;  2d,  to  make  salvation  possible.  We  hold,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  Christ  died,  1st,  for  his  elect ;  2d,  to  make  their 
salvation  certain. 

The  Calvinist,  of  course,  admits  that  it  was  a  subordinate  de- 
sign of  Christ's  death,  as  a  means  to  the  attainment  of  its  chief 
design,  that  an  interest  in  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  should  be 
offered  to  all  men,  as  available  to  all  who  believe.  In  this  objec- 
tive sense  the  salvation  of  all  men  is  rendered  possible  by  the 
death  of  Christ,  since  none  to  whom  the  gospel  is  preached  are 
excluded  except  by  their  own  wicked  refusal. — See  Dr.  Hodge's 
Com.  on  1  Cor.  viii.,  11. 

33.  How  can  the  true  doctrine  as  to  the  design  of  the  atone- 
ment he  proved  from  the  nature  of  the  atonement  as  above  estab- 
lished ? 

If  it  is  involved  in  the  very  nature  of  the  atonement,  as  above 
proved,  that  all  the  legal  responsibilities  of  those  for  whom  he 
died  were  laid  upon  Christ  ;  if  he  suffered  the  very  penalty 
which  divine  justice  exacted  of  them,  then  it  follows  necessarily 
that  all  those  for  whom  he  died  are  absolved,  since  justice  can  not 
demand  two  perfect  satisfactions,  nor  inflict  the  same  penalty  once 
upon  the  substitute  and  again  upon  the  principal. 

34.  What  Scriptures  teach  that  the  love  of  God  which  was 
manifested  in  redemption  ivas  not  mere  benevolence  but  special 
love  for  his  church  ? 

John  xvii.,  6-19  ;  xv.,  13-16  ;  x.,  11  ;  Rom.  v.,  8-10  ;  viii., 
32,  33  ;  Eph.  v.,  25-27  ;  iii.,  18,  19  ;  1  John  iii.,  16  ;  iv.,  9-10. 

The  design  of  God  must  have  been  determined  by  his  motive. 
If  his  motive  was  peculiar  love  to  his  own  people  then  his  de- 
sign must  have  been  to  secure  their  salvation,  and  not  that  of 
all  men. 

35.  What  argument  on  this  point  may  be  derived  from  the 
doctrine  of  election  ? 

As  proved  from  Scripture  above,  in  Chapter  X.,  God,  in  his 
eternal  decree,  elected  his  own  people  to  everlasting  life,  deter- 


314  CHRIST   MEDIATOKIAL   PRIEST. 

mining  to  leave  all  others  to  the  just  consequences  of  their  own 
sins.  Consequently  he  gave  his  son  to  die  for  these.  He  could 
not  consistently  give  his  Son  to  die  for  the  purpose  of  saving  the 
rest. 

36.  By  what  argument  may  it  he  proved  that  the  effect  of 
Christ's  satisfaction  ivas  not  merely  to  render  salvation  possible, 
but  that  of  his  elect  certain  ? 

1st.  Christ  is  infinitely  wise,  powerful,  and  unchangeable, 
consequently  his  design  can  never  be  frustrated.  His  design, 
therefore,  may  be  measured  by  the  effect.  He  designed  to  save 
those  whom  he  does  save. 

2d.  The  Scriptures  prove  that  his  purpose  was  actually  to 
save  those  for  whom  he  died,  not  merely  to  make  their  salvation 
possible.  Matt,  xviii.,  11  ;  Luke  xix.,  10  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  21  ;  Gal.  i., 
4  ;  iv.,  5  ;  1  Tim.  i.,  15.  Here  his  purpose  is  declared  to  be  to 
redeem,  to  save,  to  deliver,  to  make  righteous.  "  But  to  make 
salvation  possible  is  not  to  save,  to  make  holiness  possible  is  not 
to  purify,  to  open  the  door  is  not  to  bring  us  near  to  God." 

3d.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  the  effect  of  Christ's  death  is 
reconciliation  and  justification,  Kom.  v.,  10  ;  Eph.  ii.,  16  ;  remis- 
sion of  sins,  Eph.  i.,  7  ;  peace,  Eph.  ii.,  14  ;  deliverance  from 
wrath,  1  Thess.  i.,  10  ;  from  death,  Heb.  ii.,  14  ;  from  the  curse  of 
the  law,  Gal.  iii.,  13  ;  from  sin,  1  Pet.  i.,  18.  To  deliver  from 
sin  and  the  law  is  not  to  make  deliverance  possible,  but  actually 
to  deliver,  and  Christ  could  not  have  designed  to  deliver  those 
whom  he  does  not  actually  deliver. — Hodge's  Essays. 

37.  What  connection  do  the  Scriptures  represent  as  subsist- 
ing betioeen  the  ivo7'k  of  Christ  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  how  may  it  be  hence  argued  that  he  died  specially  for  his 
own  people  ? 

The  Scriptures  everywhere  teach  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
promised  to  Christ  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  and  suffering, 
to  be  by  him  bestowed  upon  those  for  whom  he  obeyed  and  suf- 
fered. "  Christ  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law  that  we 
might  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith,"  Gal.  iii., 
13,  14  ;  Acts  ii.,  33  ;  Titus  iii.,  5,  6  ;  Eph.  i.,  3.  Then  it  fol- 
lows that  all  for  whom  he  died  must  receive  that  Spirit  whose  in- 


EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  315 

fluences  were  secured  by  his  death.  If  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  secured  by  his  death,  to  teach,  renew,  and  sanctify,  it 
can  not  be  denied  that  those,  and  only  those  thus  taught,  renewed, 
and  sanctified,  are  those  for  whom  he  died." 

38.  How  is  this  truth  proved  by  the  connection  mutually  sus- 
tained by  the  different  parts  of  Christ's  mediatorial  work  ? 

Christ  came  into  this  world,  obeyed,  suffered,  died,  appeared 
before  God,  intercedes  and  sends  his  Spirit  as  mediator.  These 
are  all  essential  parts  of  the  same  oflSce.  If  he  died  for  all,  there- 
fore, he  must  perform  every  other  mediatorial  act  for  all,  he  must 
sanctify  all,  and  intercede  for  all.  All  these  are  represented  as 
united  in  the  Scriptures,  1  John  ii.,  1,  2  ;  Rom.  viii.,  34  ;  iv., 
25  ;  John  xvii.,  9.  As  these  are  all  inseparably  united  in  the 
execution,  they  must  have  been  united  in  the  design. 

39.  What  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  concerning  substitution, 
and  how  does  that  principle  answer  the  question  as  for  luhom 
Christ  died  ? 

As  shown  above,  (question  16,)  the  sacrificial  victim  under  the 
Old  Testament  was  substituted  in  the  place  of  the  ofierer.  It  was 
life  for  life.  Christ  as  an  "  offering  for  sin"  was  the  substitute  of 
those  for  whom  he  died.  As  second  Adam,  also,  he  died  by  cove- 
nant in  the  place  of  and  in  behalf  of  those  for  whom  he  died, 
2  Cor.  v.,  21  ;  Gal.  iii.,  13  ;  Isa.  liii.,  5  ;  Rom.  v.,  19  ;  1  Pet.  iii., 
18.  If  so,  then  all  for  whom  he  died  must  be  absolved,  or  else 
the  substitution  of  Christ  would  be  made  of  nought  in  each  case 
wherein  it  fails. 

40.  What  is  the  Scripture  doctrine  as  to  the  imion  of  Christ 
ivith  his  people,  and  how  does  that  doctrine  determine  the  design 
of  the  atonement  ? 

This  union  is  declared  to  be,  1st,  federal,  1  Cor.  xv.,  22  ;  Rom. 
v.,  19  ;  2d,  vital  and  spiritual,  John  xiv.,  20 ;  1  Cor.  xii.,  13, 
27  ;  Gal.  ii.,  20.  In  consequence  of  this  every  gracious  benefit 
the  believer  receives  is  said  to  be  "  in  Christ,"  and  "  with  Christ." 
We  die  in  his  death,  live  in  his  life,  and  thus  are  united  to  him 
in  all  his  mediatorial  actions  and  career.  "  I  am  crucified  with 
Christ,"  "  If  one  died  for  all  then  are  all  dead."     "Now,  if  we  be 


316  CHRIST    MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST. 

dead  with  Christ  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with  him," 
Col.  iii.,  1-3  ;  Kom.  vi.,  8-11  ;  Gal.  ii.,  20  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  14  ;  Eph. 
ii.,  5,  6.  Hence  it  follows,  1st,  Christ  could  have  designed  to  die 
only  for  those  who  were  united  with  him  in  his  death  ;  2d,  those 
who  are  united  with  him  in  his  death  must  also  "walk  with  him 
in  newness  of  life,"  i.  e.,  the  federal  union  necessarily  leads  to  the 
vital  and  spiritual  union  of  Christ  and  his  people. 

41.  If  Christ  died  only  for  his  own  people,  on  what  ground 
does  the  general  offer  of  the  gospel  rest  ? 

"  The  Lord  Jesus,  in  order  to  secure  the  salvation  of  his  peo- 
ple, and  with  a  specific  view  to  that  end,  fulfilled  the  condition 
of  the  law  or  covenant  under  which  they  and  all  mankind  were 
placed.  These  conditions  were,  (1.)  perfect  obedience  ;  (2.)  satis- 
tion  to  divine  justice.  Christ's  righteousness,  therefore,  consists 
of  his  obedience  and  death.  That  righteousness  is  precisely  what 
the  law  demands  of  every  sinner  in  order  to  justification  before 
God.  It  is,  therefore,  in  its  nature  adapted  to  all  sinners  who 
were  under  that  law.  Its  nature  is  not  altered  by  the  fact 
that  it  was  wrought  out  for  a  portion  only  of  such  sinners,  or 
that  it  is  secured  to  them  by  the  covenant  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  What  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  one  man 
is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  another  and  of  all.  It  is  also 
of  infinite  value,  being  the  righteousness  of  the  eternal  Son 
of  God,  and  therefore  sufficient  for  all." — Hodge's  Essays,  pp. 
181,  182. 

A  bona  fide  ofier  of  the  gospel,  therefore,  is  to  be  made  to  all 
men,  1st.  Because  the  satisfaction  rendered  to  the  law  is  sufficient 
for  all  men.  2d.  Because  it  is  exactly  adapted  to  the  redemption 
of  all.  3d.  Because  God  designs  that  whosoever  exercises  faith 
in  Christ  shall  be  saved  by  him.  The  design  of  Christ's  death 
being  to  secure  the  salvation  of  his  own  people,  incidentally  to  the 
accomplishment  of  that  end,  it  comprehends  the  ofier  of  that  sal- 
vation freely  and  honestly  to  all  men  on  the  condition  of  their 
faith.  No  man  is  lost  for  the  want  of  an  atonement,  or  because 
there  is  any  other  barrier  in  the  way  of  his  salvation  than  his  own 
most  free  and  wicked  will. 

42.  How  can  the  condemnation  of  men  for  the  rejection  of 


EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  317 

Christ  he  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  that  Christ  died  for  the 
elect  only  ? 

A  salvation  all-sufficient  and  exactly  adapted  to  his  necessities 
is  honestly  offered  to  every  man  to  whom  the  gospel  comes  ;  and 
in  every  case  it  is  his,  if  he  believes  ;  and  in  no  case  does  anything 
prevent  his  believing  other  than  his  own  evil  disposition.  Evi- 
dently he  is  in  no  way  concerned  with  the  design  of  God  in  pro- 
viding that  salvation  beyond  the  assurance  that  God  intends  to 
give  it  to  him  if  he  believes.  If  a  man  is  responsible  for  a  bad 
heart,  and  the  exercises  thereof,  he  must  be  above  all  worthy  of 
condemnation  for  rejecting  such  a  Saviour. 

43.  On  what  principles  are  those  texts  to  be  explained  which 
speak  of  Christ's  bearing  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  of  his  dying 

for  ALL  ? 

These  are  such  passages  as  Heb.  ii.,  9  ;  1  Cor.  xv.,  22  ;  1 
John  ii.,  2  ;  1  Tim.  ii.,  6  ;  John  i.,  29  ;  iii.,  16,  17 ;  vi.,  51. 
These  terms,  "  world"  and  "  all,"  are  unquestionably  used  in  very 
various  degrees  of  latitude  in  the  Scriptures.  In  many  passages 
that  latitude  is  evidently  Kmited  by  the  context,  e.  g.,  1  Cor.  xv., 
22  ;  Kom.  v.,  18  ;  viii.,  32  ;  John"  xii.,  32  ;  Eph.  i.,  10  ;  Col.  i., 
20 ;  2  Cor.  v.,  14,  15.  In  others  the  word  "  world"  is  opposed 
to  the  Jewish  nation  as  a  people  of  exclusive  privileges,  Rom.  xi., 
12,  15 ;  1  John  ii.,  2.  It  is  evident  that  statements  as  to  the  de- 
sign of  Christ's  death,  involving  such  general  terms,  must  be  defined 
by  the  more  definite  ones  above  exhibited.  Sometimes  this  gen- 
eral form  of  statement  is  used  to  give  prominence  to  the  fact  that 
Christ,  being  a  single  victim,  by  one  sacrifice  atoned  for  so  many. 
Compare  Matt,  xx.,  28,  with  1  Tim.  ii.,  6,  and  Heb.  ix.,  28. 
And  although  Christ  did  not  die  with  the  design  of  saving  all, 
yet  he  did  suffer  the  penalty  of  that  law  under  which  all  were 
placed,  and  he  does  offer  the  righteousness  thus  wrought  out 
to  all. 

44.  How  are  we  to  understand  those  passages  which  speak 
of  the  possibility  of  those  perishing  for  whom  Christ  died  ? 

Such  passages  are  hypothetical,  and  truly  indicate  the  nature 
and  tendency  of  the  action  against  which  they  warn  us,  and  are 


318  CHRIST   MEDIATORIAL   PRIEST. 

the  means  which  God  uses,  under  the  administration  of  his  Spirit, 
to  fulfill  his  purposes.  God  always  deals  with  men,  and  thus 
fulfills  his  own  designs  through  our  agency  by  addressing  motives 
to  our  imderstandings  and  wills.  As  in  the  case  of  Paul's  ship- 
wreck, it  was  certain  that  none  should  perish,  and  yet  all  would 
perish  except  they  abode  in  the  ship,  Acts  xxvii.,  24,  31..  On 
the  same  principle,  also,  must  be  explained  all  such  passages,  as 
Heb.  X.,  26-30  ;  1  Cor.  viii.,  11,  etc.  See  Dr.  Hodge's  Com.  on 
1  Cor.  viii.,  11. 


C  HAP  T  E  R     XXIII. 

THE      INTERCESSION     OF     CHRIST. 

1.  In  ivJiat  sense  is  Christ  to  continue  a  priest  for  ever  ? 

This  is  asserted  by  Paul,  Heb.  vii,,  3,  24,  to  contrast  the 
priesthood  of  Christ  with  that  of  Aaron,  which  consisted  of  a 
succession  of  mortal  men  in  their  generations.  His  priesthood  is 
perpetual,  because,  1st,  by  one  sacrifice  for  sin  he  hath  for  ever 
perfected  them  that  are  sanctified  ;  2d,  he  ever  liveth  to  make 
intercession  for  us ;  3d,  his  person  and  work  as  mediator  will 
continue  for  all  eternity  the  ground  of  our  acceptance,  and  the 
medium  of  our  communion  with  the  Father. 

2.  Did  he  intercede  for  his  people  on  earth  ? 

He  did  exercise  this  function  of  his  priesthood  on  earth,  Luke 
xxiii.,  34  ;  John  xvii.,  20  ;  Heb.  v.,  7  ;  the  principal  scene  of  its 
exercise,  however,  is  his  estate  of  exaltation  in  heaven. 

3.  What  is  the  view  which  the  Scriptures  present  of  the  in- 
tercession of  Christ  ? 

1st.  He  appears  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us,  as  the  priestly 
advocate  of  his  people,  and  presents  his  sacrifice,  Heb.  ix.,  12,  24 ; 
Kev.  v.,  6. 

2d.  He  acts  as  our  advocate  with  the  Father,  and  on  the  basis 
of  his  own  perfect  work  under  the  terms  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
claims  as  his  own  right,  though  as  infinitely  free  grace  to  usward, 
the  fulfillment  of  all  the  promises  of  his  covenant,  1  John  ii., 
1  ;  John  xvii.,  24  ;  xiv.,  16  ;  Acts  ii.,  33  ;  Heb.  vii.,  25. 

3d.  Because  of  his  community  of  nature  with  his. people,  and 
his  personal  experience  of  the  same  sorrows  and  temptations 
which  now  afiiict  them  he  sympathizes  with  them,  and  watches 


320  THE  INTERCESSION   OF    CHRIST. 

and  succors  them  in  all  their  varying  circumstances,  and  adapts 
his  ceaseless  intercessions  to  the  entire  current  of  their  experiences, 
Heb  ii.,  17,  18  ;  iv.,  15,  16  ;  Matt,  xxviii.,  20  ;  xviii.,  20. 

4th.  He  presents,  and  through  his  merits  gains  acceptance  for 
the  persons  and  services  of  his  people,  1  Pet.  ii.,  5  ;  Eph.  i.,  6  ; 
Rev.  viii.,  3,  4  ;  Heb.  iv.,  14-16. 

4.  For  tvJiom  does  he  intercede  ? 

Not  for  the  world,  but  for  his  own  people  of  every  fold,  and 
of  all  times,  John  x.,  16  ;  xvii.,  9,  20. 

5.  Show  that  his  intercession  is  an  essential  part  of  his 
priestly  work. 

It  is  absolutely  essential,  Heb.  vii.,  25,  because  it  is  necessary 
for  him  as  mediator  not  merely  to  open  up  a  way  of  possible  sal- 
vation, but  actually  to  accomplish  the  salvation  of  each  of  those 
given  to  him  by  the  Father,  and  to  furnish  each  with  an  "  intro- 
duction" (TTQoaaycdyi])  to  the  Father,  John  xvii.,  12  ;  Eph.  ii.,  18 ; 
iii.,  12.  The  communion  of  his  people  with  the  Father  will  ever 
be  sustained  through  him  as  mediatorial  priest,  Ps.  ex.,  4  ;  Rev. 
vii.,  17. 

6.  What  relation  does  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  sustain  to 
the  intercession  of  Christ  ? 

Christ  is  a  royal  priest,  Zech.  vi.,  13.  From  the  same  throne, 
as  king,  he  dispenses  his  Spirit  to  all  the  objects  of  his  care,  while 
as  priest  he  intercedes  for  them.  The  Spirit  acts  for  him,  taking 
only  of  his  things.  They  both  act  with  one  consent,  Christ  as 
principal,  the  Spirit  as  his  agent.  Christ  intercedes  for  us,  with- 
out us,  as  our  advocate  in  heaven,  according  to  the  provisions  of 
the  eternal  covenant.  The  Holy  Ghost  works  upon  our  minds 
and  hearts,  enlightening  and  quickening,  and  thus  determining 
our  desires  "  according  to  the  will  of  Grod,"  as  our  advocate 
within  us.  The  work  of  the  one  is  complementary  to  that  of  the 
other,  and  together  they  form  a  complete  whole,  Rom.  viii.,  26, 
27  ;  John  xiv.,  26. 


CHAPTER    XXIV. 

MEDIATORIAL  KINGSHIP  OP  CHRIST. 

1.  Holo  does  the  sovereignty  of  Christ  as  Mediator  differ  from 

his  sovereignty  as  God  ? 

His  sovereignty'as  God  is  essential  to  his  nature,  underived, 
absolute,  eternal  and  unchangeable. 

His  sovereignty  as  mediatorial  King  is  derived,  given  to  him 
by  his  Father  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  and  suffering  ;  it  is 
special,  having  respect  to  the  salvation  of  his  own  people  and  the 
administration  of  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  and  it 
attaches,  not  to  his  divine  nature  as  such,  but  to  his  person  as 
God-man,  occupying  the  office  of  Mediator. 

2.  What  is  the  extent  of  Christ's  mediatorial  kingdom,  and 
what  are  the  different  aspects  luhich  it  presents  ? 

Christ's  mediatorial  authority  embraces  the  universe.  Matt, 
xxviii.,  18  ;  Phil,  ii.,  9-11  ;  Eph.  i.,  17-23.  It  presents  two 
great  aspects.  1st.  In  its  general  administration  as  embracing 
the  universe  as  a  whole.  2d.  In  its  special  administration  as 
embracing  the  church, 

3.  What  are  the  objects  of  his  mediatorial  authority  over  the 
universe,  and  how  is  it  administered  / 

Its  object  is  to  accomplish  the  salvation  of  his  church  in  the 
execution  of  all  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  de- 
volves upon  him  as  Mediator,  Eph.  i.,  23.  As  the  universe  con- 
stitutes one  pliysical  and  moral  system,  it  was  necessary  that  his 
headship  as  Mediator  should  extend  to  the  whole,  in  order  to 
cause  all  things  to  work  together  for  good  to  his  people,  Rom. 
viii.,  28  ;  to  establish  a  kingdom  for  them,  Luke  xxii.,  29  ;  John 

21 


322  CHRIST   MEDIATORIAL   KING. 

xiv.,  2  ;  to  reduce  to  subjection  all  his  enemies,  1  Cor.  xv.,  25 ; 
Heb.  X.,  13  ;  and  in  order  that  all  should  worship  him,  Heb.  i., 
6  ;  Rev.  v.,  9-13.  His  general  mediatorial  government  of  the 
universe  is  administered,  1st,  providentially  ;  2d,  judicially,  John 
v.,  22,  27  ;  ix.,  39  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  10. 

4.  Hoio  toas  the  kmgsMp  of  Christ  foretold  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ? 

1st.  Typically  in  the  persons  of  the  theocratic  princes,  Jer. 
xxiii.,  5  ;  Is.  ix.,  7.  2d.  By  explicit  prediction,  Dan.  ii.,  44  ; 
Ps.  ii.,  6  ;  Is.  ix.,  6. 

5.  What  are  the  various  senses  in  ivhich  ihe  phrases  "  king- 
dom of  God,"  and  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  are  used  in  the  New 
Testament  ? 

They  signify  the  different  aspects  of  that  one  spiritual  reign, 
also  called  the  "  Kingdom  of  Christ."  1st.  For  true  religion, 
or  the  reign  of  Christ  in  the  heart,  Luke  xii.,  31  ;  xvii.,  21  ; 
Mark  x.,  15 ;  Eom,  xiv.,  17.  2d.  For  the  visible  church  under 
the  new  dispensation  see  parables  of  the  Sower,  Tares,  etc.,  Matt, 
xiii.  ;  iv.,  17  ;  Mark  i.,  15.  3d.  The  perfected  church  in  glory, 
Luke,  xiii.,  29  ;  2  Pet.  i.,  11. 

6.  What  is  the  nature  of  Christ's  kingly  administration  of 
the  affairs  of  his  own- people,  i.  e.,  of  his 'kingdom  as  distinct 
from  the  universe  ? 

1st.  It  is  providential.  He  administers  his  providential  gov- 
ernment over  the  universe  with  the  design  of  accomplishing  there- 
by the  support,  defence,  enrichment  and  glorification  of  his  people. 
2d.  It  is  accomplished  by  the  dispensation  of  his  Spirit  effectually 
calling,  sanctifying,  comforting,  preserving,  raising,  and  glorifying 
his  people,  John  xv.,  26  ;  Acts  ii.,  33-36.  3d.  It  is  accomplished 
by  his  prescribing  the  form,  and  order,  and  functions  of  his  church, 
the  officers  who  are  to  act  as  the  organs  of  those  functions,  and 
the  laws  which  they  are  to  administer,  Matt,  xxviii.,  18,  19, 
20  ;  Eph.  iv.,  8,  11.  4th.  By  designating  the  persons  Mho  are 
successively  to  assume  those  offices,  by  means  of  a  spiritual  call, 
expressed  in  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  the  leadings  of  providence, 


HIS  KINGDOM   SPIKITUAL.  323 

and  the  call  of  the  brethren,  Acts  i.,  23,  24  ;  vi.,  5  ;  xiii.,  2,  3  ; 
XX.,  28  ;  1  Tim.  i.,  12  ;  iv.,  14. 

Under  this  administration  this  kingdom  presents  two  aspects, 
1st,  as  militant,  Ej)h,  vi.,  11-16  ;  2d,  as  glorified,  Eev.  iii.,  21. 
And  accordingly  Christ  presents  himself  as  fulfilling,  in  his  ad- 
ministration of  the  afiairs  of  his  kingdom,  the  functions  of  a  great 
Captain,  Kev.  xix.,  11,  16,  and  of  a  sovereign  Prince  reigning 
from  a  throne.  Rev.  xxi.,  5,  22,  23. 

The  throne  upon  which  he  sits  and  from  which  he  reigns  is 
presented  in  three  different  aspects,  corresponding  to  the  different 
relations  he  sustains  to  his  people  and  the  world  ;  as  a  throne  of 
grace,  Heb.  iv.,  16  ;  a  throne  of  judgment.  Rev.  xx.,  11-15  ; 
and  a  throne  of  glory,  compare  Eev.  iv.,  2-5  with  Rev.  v.,  6. 

7.  In  what  sense  is  Christ's  kingdom  spiritual  ? 

1st.  The  King  is  a  spiritual  and  not  an  earthly  sovereign, 
Matt.  XX.,  28  ;  John  xviii.,  36.  2d.  His  throne  is  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  Acts  ii.,  33.  3d.  His  sceptre  is  spiritual.  Is.  liii., 
1  ;  Ps.  ex.,  2.  4th.  The  citizens  of  his  kingdom  are  spiritual 
men,  Phil,  iii.,  20  ;  Eph.  ii.,  19.  5th.  The  mode  in  which  he  ad- 
ministers his  government  is  spiritual,  Zech.  iv.,  6,  7.  6th.  His 
laws  are  spiritual,  John  iv.,  24.  7th.  The  blessings  and  the  pen- 
alties of  his  kingdom  are  spiritual,  1  Cor.  v.,  4-11  ;  2  Cor.  x., 
4  ;  Eph.  i.,  3-8  ;  2  Tim.  iv.,  2  ;  Tit.  ii.,  15. 

8.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  poioers  tohich  Christ  has  vested 
in  his  visible  church  ? 

In  respect  to  the  civil  magistrate  the  church  is  absolutely  in- 
dependent. In  subjection  to  the  supreme  authority  of  Christ  her 
head  the  powers  of  the  church  are  solely,  1st,  declarative,  i.  e.,  to 
expound  the  Scriptures,  which  are  the  perfect  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  thus  to  witness  to  and  promulgate  the  truth  in  creeds 
and  confessions,  by  the  pulpit  and  the  press.  And,  2d,  minis- 
terial, i.  e.,  to  organize  herself  according  to  the  pattern  furnished  in 
tlie  Word,  and  then  to  administer,  through  the  proper  officers,  the 
sacraments,  and  those  laws  and  that  discipline  prescribed  by  the 
Master,  and  to  make  provision  for  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel 
of  the  kingdom  to  every  creature.  Is.  viii.,  20  ;  Deut.  iv.,  2  ;  Matt, 
xxviii.,  18-20 ;  Heb.  xiii.,  17  ;  1  Pet.  ii.,  4. 


324  CHRIST   MEDIATORIAL   KING. 

9.  What  are  the  conditions  of  admission  into  Chrisfs  king- 
dom ? 

Simply  practical  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  sovereign. 
As  the  sovereign  and  the  entire  method  of  his  administration  are 
spiritual,  it  is  plain  that  his  authority  must  be  understood  and 
embraced  practically,  according  to  its  spiritual  nature.  This  is 
that  spiritual  faith  which  involves  spiritual  illumination,  John 
iii.,  3,  5  ;  i.,  12  ;  1  Cor.  xii.,  3. 

10.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  the  relation  of  the  Church 
to  the  State  ? 

According  to  the  strictly  logical  Komish  doctrine,  the  state  is 
only  one  phase  of  the  church.  The  whole  nation  being  in  all  its 
members  a  portion  of  the  church  universal,  the  civil  organization 
is  comprehended  within  the  church  for  special  subordinate  ends, 
and  is  responsible  to  the  church  for  the  exercise  of  all  the  au- 
thority delegated  to  it. 

11.  What  is  the  Erastian  doctrine  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
Church  to  the  State  ? 

This  doctrine,  named  from  Erastus,  a  physician  resident  in 
Heidelberg  in  the  sixteenth  century,  is  precisely  contrary  to  that 
of  the  Bomanists,  i.  e.,  it  regards  the  church  as  only  one  phase  of 
the  state.  The  state,  being  a  divine  institution,  designed  to  pro- 
vide for  all  the  wants  of  men,  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal,  is 
consequently  charged  with  the  duty  of  providing  for  the  dissemi- 
nation of  pure  doctrine,  and  for  the  proper  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  and  of  discipline.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  state,  there- 
fore, to  support  the  church,  to  appoint  its  officers,  to  define  its 
laws,  and  to  superintend  its  administration. 

12.  What  is  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  on 
this  point  ? 

That  the  church  and  the  state  are  both  divine  institutions, 
having  different  objects,  and  in  every  respect  independent  of  each 
other.  The  members  and  officers  of  the  church  are,  as  men, 
members  of  the  state,  and  ought  to  be  good  citizens  ;  and  the 
members  and  officers  of  the  state,  if  Christians,  are  members  of 
the  church,  and  as  such  subject  to  her  laws.     But  neither  the  offi- 


CHURCH    AND    STATE.  325 

cers  nor  the  laws  of  either  have  any  authoiity  within  the  sphere 
of  the  other. 

13.  What  is  the  idea  and  design  of  the  State  ? 

Civil  government  is  a  divine  institution,  designed  to  protect 
men  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  civil  rights.  It  has,  therefore,  de- 
rived from  God  authority  to  define  those  rights  touching  all  ques- 
tions of  person  and  property,  and  to  provide  for  their  vindication, 
to  regulate  intercourse,  and  to  provide  all  means  necessary  for  its 
own  preservation. 

14.  What  is  the  design  of  the  visible  Church  ? 

It  is  a  divine  institution  designed  to  secure  instrumentally  the 
salvation  of  men.     To  that  end  it  is  specially  designed — 

1st.  To  bring  men  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth. 

2d.  To  secure  their  obedience  to  the  truth,  and  to  exercise 
their  graces  by  the  public  confession  of  Christ,  the  fellowship 
of  the  brethren,  and  the  administration  of  the  ordinances  and 
discipline. 

3d.  To  constitute  the  visible  witness  and  prophetic  type  of  the 
church  invisible  and  spiritual. 

15.  What  are  the  duties  of  the  State  with  regard  to  the 
Church .? 

The  State,  of  course,  sustains  precisely  the  same  relation  to 
the  persons  of  church  members  and  officers,  and  to  the  public 
property  of  the  church,  that  she  does  to  all  other  persons  and 
property  subject  to  her  jurisdiction  and  under  her  protection. 
Otherwise  the  State  neither  possesses  rights  nor  owes  duties  to 
the  church  ;  yet,  as  the  Scriptures  and  the  power  which  the  State 
administers  are  alike  directly  from  God,  and  since  each  individual, 
legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  officer  of  the  State  is  bound  to 
receive  every  word  of  Scripture  as  God's  will,  it  follows  necessa- 
rily that  all  the  deliverances  of  Scripture  upon  all  the  subjects 
which  fall  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State,  ought,  by  a  divine 
right,  to  be  acknowledged  and  obeyed  as  an  inviolable  clement  in 
the  supreme  law  of  every  State.  For  instance,  no  laws  can  be  right 
upon  the  great  subjects  of  marriage,  oaths,  the  Sabbath  day,  the 


326  MEDIATORIAL   KINGSHIP   OF   CHRIST. 

duties  and  the  rights  of  slaves,  etc.,  which  do  not  express  the  prin- 
ciples wliich  God  has  revealed  in  his  word  upon  those  subjects. 
The  church,  however,  hence  acquires  no  rights  to  expound  this 
law  of  God  authoritatively  for  the  guidance  of  the  State.  All 
her  teaching  must  be  within  her  own  sphere,  and  her  influence 
upon  the  State  can  only  be  indirect,  through  the  citizens  of  the 
State,  who  have  been  enlightened  not  as  citizens,  but  as  members 
of  the  congregation. 

16.  What  are  the  duties  of  the  Church  with  regard  to  the 
State  ? 

1st.  The  church  owes  obedience  to  the  State  in  the  exercise 
of  her  lawful  authority  over  the  public  property  of  the  church. 
2d.  She  is  bound  to  use  all  the  lawful  means  in  her  possession  for 
caiTying  the  gospel  to  all  the  members  of  the  State.  Beyond  this 
the  church  owes  no  duty  to  the  State  whatever. 

17.  In  what  sense  is  Ghi'ist  to  return  his  kingdom  to  his  Fa- 
ther, and  in  lohat  sense  will  his  mediatorial  headship  continue 
for  ever  ? 

The  sum  of  what  is  revealed  to  us  upon  this  subject  appears 
to  be,  that  after  the  complete  glorification  of  his  people,  and  the 
destruction  of  his  enemies,  Christ  will  demit  his  mediatorial  au- 
thority over  the  universe  which  he  has  administered  as  God-man, 
in  order  that  the  Godhead  absolute  may  be  immediately  all  in  all 
to  the  creature,  1  Cor.  xv.,  24-28.  But  his  mediatorial  headship 
over  his  own  people,  including  the  offices  of  prophet,  priest,  and 
king,  shall  continue  for  ever.  This  is  certain,  1st.  Because  he  is 
a  priest  forever,  and  of  his  kingdom  there  is  no  end,  Ps.  ex.,  4  ; 
Dan.  vii.,  14 ;  Luke  i.,  33.  2d.  The  personal  union  between  his 
divine  and  human  nature  is  to  continue  for  ever.  3d.  As  Media- 
tor he  is  the  head  of  the  church,  which  is  his  fullness,  and  the 
consummation  of  the  marriage  of  the  Lamb  is  the  beginning  of 
heaven,  Rev.  xix.,  7  ;  xxi.,  2,  9.  4th.  As  "  a  Lamb  that  had 
been  slain,"  he  is  represented  in  heaven  on  the  throne  as  ever 
more  the  temple  and  the  light  of  the  city,  and  as  feeding  his  peo- 
ple, and  leading  them  to  fountains  of  living  waters,  Rev,  v.,  6  ; 
vii.,  17  ;  xxi.,  22,  23. 


HIS   ESTATE   OF   HUMILIATION.  327 

CHRIST   EXECUTED   HIS  OFFICE  OF  MEDIATOR  BOTH  IN  HIS  ESTATE 
OF   HUMILIATION   AND   EXALTATION. 

18.  Wherein  does  Christ's  humiliation  consist  ? 

See  Larger  Catechism,  questions  46-50  ;  Shorter  Catechism, 
question  27. 

19.  In  what  sense  was  Christ  made  under  the  law,  and  how 
was  that  subjection  an  act  of  humiliation  ? 

In  his  incarnation  Christ  was  born  precisely  into  the  law 
place  of  his  people,  and  sustained  to  the  law  precisely  that  relation 
which  they  did.  He  was  born  under  the  law,  then,  1st,  as  a  rule 
of  duty ;  2d,  as  a  covenant  of  life  ;  3d,  as  a  broken  covenant, 
whose  curse  was  already  incurred.  His  voluntary  assumption  of 
such  a  position  was  preeminently  an  act  of  humiliation  :  1st. 
His  assumption  of  a  human  nature  was  voluntary,  2d.  After  his 
incarnation  his  person  remained  divine,  and  the  claims  of  law  ter- 
minating upon  persons,  and  not  upon  natures,  his  submission  to 
those  claims  was  purely  gratuitous.  3d.  This  condescension  is 
immeasurably  heightened  by  the  fact  that  he  accepted  the  curse 
of  the  law  as  of  a  covenant  of  life  already  broken,  Gal.  iii.,  10-13; 
iv.,  4,  5. 

20.  In  what  sense  did  Christ  undergo  the  curse  of  the  law, 
and  how  was  that  possible  for  God's  well-beloved  Son  ? 

In  his  own  person,  absolutely  considered,  Chidst  is  often  de- 
clared by  the  Father  to  be  his  "  beloved  Son,  with  whom  he  was 
well  pleased,"  Matt,  iii.,  17 ;  2  Pet.  i.,  17 ;  and  he  always  did 
that  which  pleased  God,  John  viii.,  29.  But  in  his  office  as  me- 
diator he  had  assumed  our  place,  and  undertaken  to  bear  the 
guilt  of  our  sin.  The  wi'ath  of  God,  then,  which  Christ  bore, 
was  the  infinite  displeasure  of  God  against  our  sins,  which  dis- 
pleasure terminated  upon  Christ's  person  vicariously,  because  of 
the  iniquity  of  us  all  which  was  laid  upon  him,  Matt,  xxvi.,  38  ; 
xxvii.,  46  ;  Luke  xxii.,  44. 

21.  What  are  the  different  interpretations  of  the  phrase  in  the 
apostles'  creed,  "he  descended  into  hell?" 

Our  standards  teach  that  the  phrase  in  the  creed,  which  is 


328  MEDIATORIAL   KINGSHIP   OF   CHRIST. 

borrowed  from  Ps.  xvi.,  10,  and  Acts  ii.,  27,  means  Christ's  con- 
timiing  in  the  state  of  the  dead,  and  under  the  power  of  death 
till  the  third  day,  Larger  Cat.,  question  50.  did?/^,  translated  hell, 
appears  to  he  used  in  its  etymological  and  most  general  sense  for 
the  invisible  state  of  the  dead,  presenting  no  definite  idea  of 
place,  but  rather  of  a  state  marked,  1st,  as  invisible,  i.  e.,  to  the 
living  ;  2d,  by  separation  of  soul  and  body.  Compare  Acts  ii., 
24-28  ;  ii.,  31  ;  with  Ps.  xvi.,  8-11. 

The  Komanists  interpret  "  hell"  in  this  phrase  as  signifying 
the  "Limbus  Patrum,"  or  that  region  of  the  invisible  world  "  into 
which  the  souls  of  the  just  who  died  before  Christ  were  received, 
and  where,  without  experiencing  any  sort  of  pain,  and  supported 
by  the  blessed  hope  of  redemption,  they  enjoyed  peaceful  repose. 
To  liberate  these  souls,  who,  in  the  bosom  of  "Abraham,  were  ex- 
pecting the  Saviour  Christ,  the  Lord  descended  into  hell." — Cate- 
chism of  Coun.  of  Trent,  Part  I.,  Art.  5th. 

Some  have  held  the  revolting  opinion  that  Christ  actually  de- 
scended into  the  place  of  torments  to  triumph  over  the  powers  of 
darkness,  which  is  evidently  inconsistent  with  Luke  xxiii.,  43,  46. 

22.  What  is  the  true  meaning  of  1  Pet.  iii.,  19-21  ? 

This  passage  is  very  obscure.  The  Romish  interpretation  is 
shown  in  the  answer  to  the  preceding  question,  i.  e.,  that  Christ 
went  to  the  Limbus  Patrum  and  preached  the  gospel  to  those 
imprisoned  spirits  that  were  awaiting  his  advent. 

The  common  Protestant  interpretation  is  that  Christ  was  put 
to  death  in  the  body,  but  quickened,  or  restored  to  life  by  the 
Spirit,  by  which  Spirit,  inspiring  Noah  as  a  preacher  of  righteous- 
ness, Christ  many  centuries  previously  had  descended  from 
heaven,  and  preached  to  the  men  of  that  generation,  who  in  their 
sin  and  unbelief  were  the  "  spirits  in  prison."  Only  eight  persons 
believed  and  were  saved ;  therefore.  Christian  professors  and 
teachers  ought  not  to  faint  because  of  the  unbelief  of  mankind 
now. 

Another  interpretation,  suggested  by  Archbishop  Leighton  in 
a  note,  as  his  last  opinion,  and  expounded  at  large  by  the  late  Dr. 
John  Brown,  of  Edinburgh,  is,  that  Christ  dying  in  the  body  as 
a  vicarious  sacrifice  is  quickened  in  the  spirit,  i.  e.,  spiritually 
quickened,  manifested  as  a  complete  Saviour  in  a  higher  degree 


HIS   ESTATE   OF   EXALTATION.  329 

than  was  possible  before,  as  a  grain  of  wheat  dying  he  began  to 
bear  much  fruit ;  and  thus  quickened,  he  now,  through  the  inspi- 
ration of  his  Spirit,  preached  to  "  spirits  in  prison,"  i.  e.,  prison- 
ers of  sin  and  Satan,  just  as  he  had  before  done,  though  with  less 
power,  through  Noah  and  all  the  prophets,  when  the  spirits  were 
disobedient ;  under  the  ministry  of  Noah  only  eight  souls  being 
saved  ;  but  since  Christ  was  quickened  in  spirit,  i.  e.,  manifested 
as  a  comj^lete  Saviour,  multitudes  believed. 

23.  Wherein  does  Christ's  exaltation  consist  ? 
Shorter  Cat.,  question  28,  Larger  Cat.,  questions  51-54. 

24.  In  what  sense  ivas  it  possible  for  the  coequal  Son  of  God 
to  he  exalted  f 

As  the  coequal  Son  of  God  this  was  impossible,  yet  his  person 
as  God-man  was  capable  of  exaltation  in  several  respects. 

1st.  Through  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures,  the 
outward  manifestations  of  the  glory  of  his  person  had  been  veiled 
from  the  eyes  of  creatures.  2d.  As  Mediator  he  occupied  officially 
a  position  inferior  to  the  Father,  condescending  to  occupy  the 
place  of  sinners.  He  had  been  inconceivably  humbled,  and,  as  a 
reward  consequent  upon  his  voluntary  self-humiliation,  the 
Father  highly  exalted  him,  Phil,  ii.,  8,  9  ;  Heb.  xii.,  2  ;  Rev. 
v.,  6.  3d.  His  human  soul  and  body  were  inconceivably  exalted, 
Matt,  xvii.,  2  ;  Rev.  i.,  12-16  ;  xx.,  11. 

25.  What  are  the  various  sources  of  proof  by  lohich  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  is  established  ? 

1st.  The  Old  Testament  predicted  it.  Compare  Ps.  xvi.,  10, 
and  Acts  ii.,  24-31.  All  the  other  predictions  concerning  the 
Messiah  were  fulfilled  in  Christ,  therefore  this. 

2d.  Christ  predicted  it,  and  therefore,  if  he  was  a  true  prophet, 
he  must  have  risen.  Matt,  xx.,  19  ;  John  x.,  18. 

3d.  The  event,  his  extraordinary  origin  and  character  consid- 
ered, is  not  antecedently  improbable. 

4th.  The  testimony  of  the  eleven  apostles.  These  men  are 
proved  by  their  writings  to  have  been  good,  intelligent  and  seri- 
ous, and  they  each  had  every  opportunity  of  ascertaining  the  fact, 
and  they  sealed  their  sincerity  with  their  blood,  Acts  i.,  3. 


330  MEDIATORIAL  KINGSHIP   OF   CHRIST. 

5th.  The  sejoarate  testimony  of  Paul,  who,  as  one  born  out 
of  due  time,  saw  his  risen  Lord,  and  derived  his  revelation  and 
commission  from  him  in  person,  1  Cor.  xv.,  8  ;  Gal.  i.,  12  ;  Acts 
ix.,  3-8. 

6  th.  He  was  seen  by  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  to  whom 
Paul  appeals.  Cor.  xv.,  6. 

7th.  The  change  of  the  Sabbath,  from  the  last  to  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  is  a  monument  of  the  concurrent  testimony  of  the 
whole  of  the  first  generation  of  Christians,  to  the  fact  that  they 
believed  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead. 

8th.  The  miracles  wrought  by  the  aj^ostles  were  God's  seals 
to  their  testimony  that  he  had  raised  Christ,  Heb.  ii.,  4. 

9th.  The  accompanying  witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  honoring 
the  apostles'  doctrine  and  ministry  not  merely  by  miraculous 
gifts,  but  by  his  sanctifying,  elevating  and  consoling  power,  Acts 
v.,  32.— Dr.  Hodge. 

26.  By  whose  power  did  Christ  rise  from  the  dead  f 

The  Scriptures  ascribe  his  resurrection^ — 

1st.  To  himself,  John  ii.,  19  ;  x.,  17. 

2d.  To  the  Father,  Acts  xiii.,  33  ;  Rom.  x.,  9  ;  Eph.  i.,  20. 

This  is  reconciled  upon  the  principle  that  all  acts  of  divine 
power,  terminating  upon  objects  external  to  the  Godhead,  may  be 
attributed  to  either  of  the  divine  persons,  or  to  the  Godhead  abso- 
lutely, John  v.,  17-19. 

27.  On  ivhat  ground  does  the  apostle  declare  that  our  faith  is 
vain  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  (1  Cor.  xv.,  14)  ? 

1st.  If  Christ  be  risen  indeed,  then  he  is  the  true  Messiah, 
and  all  the  prophecies  of  both  dispensations  have  in  that  fact  a 
pledge  of  their  fulfillment.  If  he  has  not  risen,  then  are  they  all 
false. 

2d.  The  resurrection  proved  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  Rom. 
i.,  4,  for  (1.)  he  rose  by  his  own  power,  (2.)  it  authenticated  all 
his  claims  with  respect  to  himself. 

3d.  In  the  resurrection  of  Christ  the  Father  publicly  declared 
his  approbation  and  acceptance  of  Christ's  work  as  sm'ety  of  his 
people,  Rom.  iv.,  25. 


HIS   ESTATE   OF   EXALTATION.  331 

4th.  If  Christ  has  risen,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father, 
Kom.  viii.,  34 ;  Heb.  ix.,  11,  12,  24. 

5th.  If  Christ  be  raised,  we  have  assurance  of  eternal  life  ;  if 
he  lives,  we  shall  live  also,  John  xiv.,  19  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  3-5. 

6th.  Owing  to  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  members, 
which  is  both  federal  and  spiritual,  his  resuiTection  secures  ours, 
(1.)  because,  as  we  died  in  Adam,  so  we  must  live  in  Christ,  1 
Cor.  XV.,  21,  22  ;  (2.)  because  of  liis  Spirit,  that  dwelleth  in  us, 
Rom.  viii.,  11  ;  1  Cor.  vi.,  15  ;  1  Thess.  iv.,  14. 

7th.  Christ's  resurrection  illustrates  and  determines  the  na- 
ture of  om'  resurrection  as  well  as  secures  it,  1  Cor.  xv.,  49  ;  Phil, 
iii.,  21  ;  1  John,  iii.,  2. — Dr.  Hodge. 

28.  When,  at  ivhat  place,  and  in  ivhose  presence  did  Christ 
ascend  ? 

He  ascended  forty  days  after  his  resurrection,  from  a  portion 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  near  to  the  village  of  Bethany,  in  the 
presence  of  the  eleven  apostles,  and  possibly  of  other  disciples, 
while  he  was  in  the  act  of  blessing  them,  and  while  they  beheld 
him,  and  were  looking  steadfastly.  Luke  says,  moreover,  that 
there  were  two  glorified  men  present,  who  are  conjectured  by 
Professor  J.  A.  Alexander  to  have  been  Moses  and  Elijah.  He 
was  attended  also  with  angels  celebrating  his  victory  over  sin,  and 
his  exaltation  to  his  mediatorial  thi-one,  Luke  xxiv.,  50,  51  ;  Mark 
xvi.,  19  ;  Acts  i.,  9-11 ;  Eph.  iv.,  8  ;  Col.  ii.,  13-15  ;  Ps.  xxiv., 
7-10  ;  Ixviii.,  18. 

29.  WTiat  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's 
ascension  ? 

Those  who,  as  the  Lutherans,  believe  that  Christ's  body  is 
omnipresent  to  his  church,  of  course,  maintain  that  his  ascension 
consisted  not  in  any  local  change,  but  in  the  withdi'awal  of  his 
former  sensible  intercourse  with  his  disciples. 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  his  human  soul  and  body  did  ac- 
tually pass  up  from  earth  to  the  abode  of  the  blessed,  and  that 
his  entire  person,  as  the  God-man,  was  gloriously  exalted.  He 
ascended  as  Mediator,  triumphing  over  his  enemies,  and  giving  gifts 
to  his  friends,  Eph.  iv.,  8-12  ;  to  complete  his  mediatorial  work, 
John  xiv.,  2,  3  ;  as  the  Forerunner  of  his  people,  Heb.  vi.  20  ;  and 


332  THE   MEDIATORIAL   KINGSHIP   OF   CHRIST. 

to  fill  the  universe  with  the  manifestations  of  his  glory  and  power, 
Eph.,  iv.,  10. 

30.  WJiat  is  included  in  Christ's  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father  ? 

See  Ps.  ex.,  1 ;  Mark  xvi.,  19  ;  Rom.  \i\\.,  34 ;  Eph.  i.,  20, 
22  ;  Col.  iii.,  1  ;  Heb.  i.,  3,  4  ;  x.,  12  ;  1  Pet.  iii.,  22. 

This  language  is  evidently  figurative,  yet  it  very  expressively 
sets  forth  the  supreme  glorification  of  Christ  in  heaven.  It  pre- 
sents him  as  the  God-man,  and  in  his  office  as  Mediator  exalted  to 
supreme  and  universal  glory,  felicity  and  power  over  all  princi- 
palities and  powers,  and  every  name  that  is  named,  Heb.  ii.,  9  ; 
Ps.  xvi.,  11 ;  Matt,  xxvi.,  64  ;  Dan.  vii.,  13,  14  ;  Phil,  ii.,  9, 11 ; 
John  v.,  22  ;  Rev.  v.,  6.  Thus  j)ublicly  assuming  his  throne  as 
mediatorial  Priest  and  King  over  the  universe  for  the  benefit  of 
his  church. 

Seated  upon  that  throne  he,  during  the  present  dis- 
pensation, AS  Mediator,  effectually  applies  to  his  people, 
through  his  Spirit,  that  salvation  which  he  had  previ- 
ously achieved  for  them  in  his  estate  of  humiliation. 


CHAPTER    XXV. 

EFFECTUAL      CALLING. 

1.  What  is  the  New  Testa7nent  usage  of  the  words  KaXuv  (fo 
call),  icXrjoig  (calling),  and  KXrjrng  (the  called)  ? 

KuXeiv  is  used  in  the  sense,  1st,  of  calling  with  the  voice,  John 
X.,  3  ;  Mark  i.,  20  ;  2d,  of  calling  forth,  to  summon  authorita- 
tively. Acts  iv.,  18  ;  xxiv.,  ii.  ;  3d,  of  inviting.  Matt.,  xxii.,  3  ; 
ix.,  13  ;  1  Tim.  vi.,  12.  Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen.  4th. 
Of  the  effectual  call  of  the  Spirit,  Rom.  viii.,  28-30  ;  1  Pet.  ii., 
9  ;  v.,  10.  5th.  Of  an  appointment  to  office,  Heb.  v.,  4.  6th. 
In  the  sense  of  naming.  Matt,  i.,  21  ;  KXrjaig  occurs  eleven  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  each  instance  it  signifies  the  effectual 
call  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  the  exception  of  1  Cor.  vii.,  20,  where 
it  is  used  as  synonymous  with  business  or  trade. — See  Rom.  xi., 
29  ;  1  Cor.  i.,  26,  etc.,  etc. — Robinson's  Lex. 

KXrjTog  occurs  ten  times  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  used  to 
signify,  1st,  those  appointed  to  any  office,  Rom.  i.,  1.  2d.  Those 
who  receive  the  external  call  of  the  word.  Matt,  xx.,  16.  3d. 
The  effectually  called,  Rom.  i.,  7  ;  viii.,  28  ;  1  Cor.  i.,  2,  24  ; 
Jude  i.;  Rev.  xvii.,  14. 

The  very  word  tKKXrjaia  (church)  designating  the  company  of 
the  faithful,  the  heirs  of  all  the  promises,  signifies,  etymologically, 
the  company  called  forth,  the  body  constituted  by  "the  calling." 

2.  What  is  included  in  the  external  call  ? 

Ist.  A  declaration  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  2d.  A  declara- 
tion of  duty  on  the  part  of  the  sinner  to  repent  and  believe.  3d. 
A  declaration  of  the  motives  which  ought  to  influence  the  sin- 
ner's mind,  such  as  fear  or  hope,  remorse  or  gratitude.     4th.  A 


334  EFFECTUAL   CALLING. 

promise  of  acce2)tance  in  the  case  of  all  those  who  comply  with 
the  conditions. — Dr.  Hodge. 

3.  How  can  it  he  proved  that  the  external  call  to  salvation  is 
made  only  through  the  word  of  God  ? 

The  law  of  God,  as  impressed  upon  the  moral  constitution  of 
man,  is  natural,  and  inseparable  from  man  as  a  moral  responsible 
agent,  Rom.  i.,  19,  20 ;  ii.,  14,  15.  But  the  gospel  is  no  part  of 
that  natural  law.  It  is  of  grace,  not  of  nature,  and  it  can  be 
made  known  to  us  only  by  a  special  and  supernatural  revelation. 

This  is  further  evident,  1st,  because  the  Scriptures  declare 
that  a  knowledge  of  the  word  is  essential  to  salvation,  Rom.  x., 
14-17  ;  and,  2d,  because  they  also  declare  that  those  who  neglect 
the  word,  either  written  or  preached,  are  guilty  of  the  eminent 
sin  of  rejecting  all  possibility  of  salvation.  Matt,  xi.,  21,  22  ; 
Heb.  ii.,  3. 

4.  On  ivhat  principle  is  this  external  call  addressed  equally  to 
the  non-elect  as  well  as  to  the  elect  ? 

That  it  is  addressed  indiscriminately  to  both  classes  is  proved, 
1st.  From  the  express  declaration  of  Scripture,  Matt,  xxii.,  14. 
2d.  The  command  to  preach  the  gospel  to  eveiy  creature,  Mark 
xvi.,  15.  3d.  The  promise  to  every  one  who  accepts  it.  Rev.  xxii., 
17.  4th.  The  awful  judgment  pronounced  upon  those  who  reject 
it,  John  iii.,  19  ;  xvi,,  9. 

It  is  addressed  to  the  non-elect  equally  with  the  elect,  because 
it  is  equally  their  duty  and  interest  to  accept  the  gospel,  because 
the  provisions  of  salvation  are  equally  suited  to  their  case,  and 
abundantly  sufficient  for  all,  and  because  Grod  intends  that  its 
benefits  shall  actually  accrue  to  every  one  who  accepts  it. 

5.  Hoiv  can  it  be  j^^oved  that  there  is  an  internal  spiritual 
call  distinct  from  an  exteimal  one  ? 

1st.  From  those  passages  which  distinguish  the  Spirit's  influ- 
ence from  that  of  the  word,  John  vi.,  45,  64,  65  ;  1  Thes.  i.,  5, 
6.  2d.  Those  passages  which  teach  that  the  Spirit's  influence  is 
necessary  to  the  reception  of  the  truth,  Eph.  i.,  17.  3d.  Those 
that  refer  all  good  in  man  to  Grod,  Phil,  ii.,  13  ;  Eph.  ii.,  8  ;  2 


\ 


APPLICATION  OF   EEDEMPTION.  335 

Tim.,  ii.,  25,  e.  g.,  faith  and  repentance.  4tli.  The  Scripture 
distinguishes  between  the  two  calls  ;  of  the  subjects  of  the  one  it 
is  said  "many  are  called  and  few  are  chosen/'  of  the  subjects  of 
the  other  it  is  said,  "  whom  he  called,them  he  also  justified."  Of 
the  one  he  says,  "  Because  I  have  called,  and  ye  have  refused," 
Prov.  i.,  24.  Of  the  other  he  says,  "  Every  man  therefore  who  hath 
heard  and  hath  learned  of  the  Father  cometh  unto  me,"  John  vi., 
45.  5th.  There  is  an  absolute  necessity  for  such  an  internal, 
spiritual  call,  man  by  nature  is  "blind"  and  "dead"  in  tres- 
passes and  sins,  1  Cor.  ii ,  14 ;  2  Gor.  iv.,  4  ;  Eph.  ii.,  1. 

6.  WJiat  is  the  Pelagian  view  of  the  internal  call  ? 

Pelagians  deny  original  sin,  and  maintain  that  right  and 
wrong  are  qualities  attaching  only  to  executive  acts  of  the  will. 
They  therefore  assert,  1st.  The  full  ability  of  the  free  will  of  man 
as  much  to  cease  from  sin  at  any  time  as  to  continue  in  its  prac- 
tice. 2d.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  produces  no  inward  change  in  the 
heart  of  the  subject,  except  as  he  is  the  author  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  as  the  Scriptures  present  moral  truths  and  motives,  which  of 
their  own  nature  exert  a  moral  influence  upon  the  soul. 

7.  What  is  the  Semi-Pelagian  view  f 

These  maintain  that  grace  is  necessary  to  enable  a  man  suc- 
cessfully to  return  unto  God  and  live.  Yet  that  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  human  will  man  must  first  of  himself  desire  to  be 
free  from  sin,  and  to  choose  God  as  his  chief  good,  when  he  may 
expect  God's  aid  in  carrying  his  desires  into  effect. 

8.  What  is  the  Arminian  view  f 

The  Arminians  admit  the  doctrine  of  man's  total  depravity, 
and  tliat  in  consequence  thereof  man  is  utterly  unable  to  do  any- 
thing aright  in  the  unaided  exercise  of  his  natural  faculties. 
Nevertheless,  as  Christ  died  equally  for  every  man,  sufficient  grace, 
enabling  its  subject  to  do  all  that  is  required  of  him,  is  granted  to 
all.  Which  sufficient  gi'ace  becomes  efficient  only  when  it  is  co- 
operated with  and  improved  by  the  sinner. — Apol.  Conf.  Re- 
monstr.,  p.  162,  b.;  Limborch,  Theo.  Christ.,  4,  12,  8. 


336  EFFECTUAL   CALLING. 

9.  What  is  the  doctrine  on  this  subject  taught  hy  the  symbols 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  ? 

The  Lutherans  agree  entirely  with  the  Calvinistic  view  on  the 
point  of  efficacious  gi-ace,  although  they  are  logically  inconsistent 
in  denying  the  doctrine  of  election. — Additions  to  Luther's  Small 
Catechism,  III.  Order  of  Salvation,  questions  74-88. 

10.  What  is  the  Synergistic  view  of  this  point  ? 

At  the  call  of  Maurice,  the  new  elector  of  Saxony,  the  divines 
of  Wittemhurg  and  Leipsic  assembled  at  Leipsic,  A.  D.  1548,  in 
conference,  and  on  that  occasion  the  Synergistic  controversy  arose. 
The  term  signifies  cooperation.  The  Synergists  were  Lutheran 
theologians,  who  departed  from  their  own  system  on  this  one  sub- 
ject, and  adopted  the  position  of  the  Arminians.  Melanch- 
thon  used  these  words  at  that  conference  :  "  God  so  di-aws  and 
converts  adults  that  some  agency  of  then-  will  accompanies  his 
influences." 

11.  What  is  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches 
as  to  the  internal  call  ? 

That  it  is  an  exercise  of  divine  power  upon  the  soul,  imme- 
diate, spiritual,  and  supernatural,  communicating  a  new  spiritual 
life,  and  thus  making  a  new  mode  of  spiritual  activity  possible. 
That  repentance,  faith,  trust,  hope,  love,  etc.,  are  purely  and 
simply  the  sinner's  own  acts  ;  but  as  such  are  possible  to  him 
only  in  virtue  of  the  change  wi-ought  in  the  moral  condition  of 
his  faculties  by  the  recreative  power  of  Grod. — See  Conf.  of  Faith. 
Chap.  X.,  Sections  1  and  2. 

12.  What  diversity  of  opinion  prevails  among  the  Romanists 
upon  this  subject? 

The  disciples  of  Augustin  in  that  church,  of  whom  the  Jan- 
senists  were  the  most  prominent,  are  orthodox,  but  these  have 
been  almost  universally  overthrown,  and  supplanted  by  their  ene- 
mies the  Jesuits,  who  are  Semi-Pelagians.  The  Council  of  Trent 
attempted  to  satify  both  parties. — Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  6,  Can. 
3  and  4.  The  doctrines  of  Quesuel,  who  advocated  the  truth  on 
this  subject,  were  condemned  in  the  Bull  "  Unigenitus,"  A.  D. 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  337 

1713.  Bellarmine  taught  that  the  same  grace  is  given  to  every 
man,  which,  by  the  event  only,  is  proved  practically  congruous  to 
the  nature  of  one  man,  and  therefore  in  his  case  efficacious,  and 
incono-ruous  to  the  nature  of  another,  and  therefore  in  his  case 
ineffectual. 

13.  What  is  meant  hy  "  common  grace"  and  hotv  may  it  be 
shown  that  the  Spirit  does  operate  upon  the  minds  of  those  who 
are  not  7'eneiued  in  heart  f 

"  Common  grace"  is  the  restraining  and  persuading  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  acting  only  through  the  truth  revealed  in  the 
gospel,  or  through  the  natural  light  of  reason  and  of  conscience, 
heightening  the  natural  moral  effect  of  such  truth  upon  the  un- 
derstanding, conscience,  and  heart.  It  involves  no  change  of 
heart,  but  simply  an  enhancement  of  the  natural  powers  of  the 
truth,  a  restraint  of  the  evil  passions,  and  an  increase  of  the 
natural  emotions  in  view  of  sin,  duty,  and  self-interest. 

That  God  does  so  operate  upon  the  hearts  of  the  unregenerate 
is  proved,  1st,  from  Scripture,  Gen.  vi.,  3  ;  Acts  vii.,  51  ;  Heb. 
X.,  29  ;  2d,  from  universal  experience  and  observation. 

14.  How  does  common  differ  from  efficacious  grace? 

1st.  As  to  its  subjects.  All  men  are  more  or  less  the  subjects 
of  the  one  ;  only  the  elect  are  subjects  of  the  other,  Rom.  viii.,  30; 
xi.,  7  ;  2  Thes.  ii.,  13. 

2d.  As  to  its  nature.  Common  grace  is  only  mediate,  through 
the  truth,  and  it  is  merely  moral,  heightening  the  moral  influence 
natural  to  the  truth,  and  exciting  only  the  natural  powers  of 
the  soul,  both  rational  and  moral.  But  efficacious  grace  is  im- 
mediate and  supernatural,  since  it  is  wrought  directly  in  the  soul 
by  the  immediate  energy  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  since  it  implants 
a  new  spiritual  life,  and  a  capacity  for  a  new  mode  of  exercising 
the  natural  faculties. 

3d.  As  to  its  effects.  The  effects  of  common  grace  are  super- 
ficial and  transient,  modifying  the  action,  but  not  changing  the 
nature,  and  its  influence  is  always  more  or  less  consciously  re- 
sisted, as  opposed  to  the  prevailing  dispositions  of  the  soul.  But 
efficacious  grace,  since  it  acts  not  up)on  but  in  the  Avill  itself, 
changing  the  governing  desires,  and  giving  a  new  direction  to  the 

22 


338  EFFECTUAL   CALLING. 

active  powers  of  the  soul,  is  neither  resistible  nor  irresistible,  but 
most  free,  spontaneous,  and  yet  most  certainly  effectual. 

15.  How  can  it  he  proved  that  this  efficacious  grace  is  con- 
fined to  the  elect  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  represent  the  elect  as  the  called,  and  the 
called  as  the  elect,  Kom.  viii.,  28,  30  ;  Rev.  xvii.,  14.  2d.  This 
effectual  calling  is  said  to  be  based  upon  the  decree  of  election,  2 
Thes.  ii.,  13,  14  ;  2  Tim.  i.,  9,  10.  3d.  Sanctification,  justifica- 
tion, and  all  the  temi^oral  and  eternal  benefits  of  union  Avith 
Christ  are  declared  to  be  the  effects  of  effectual  calling,  1  Cor.  i., 
2  ;  Eph.  ii.,  5  ;  Rom.  viii.,  30. 

16.  Prove  that  it  is  given  on  account  of  Christ. 

1st.  All  spiritual  blessings  are  given  on  account  of  Christ, 
Eph,  i.,  3  ;  Titus  iii.,  5,  6.  2d.  The  Scriptures  specifically  de- 
clare that  we  are  called  in  Clirist,  Rom.  viii.,  2  ;  Eph.  ii.,  4-6  ; 
2  Tim.  i.,  9. 

17.  What  is  meant  by  saying  that  this  divine  influence  is  im- 
mediate and  supernatural  ? 

It  is  meant,  1st,  to  deny,  (1.)  that  it  consists  simply  in  the 
moral  influence  of  the  truth  ;  (2.)  that  it  consists  simply  in  the 
moral  influence  of  the  Spirit,  heightening  the  moral  influence  of 
the  truth  as  objectively  presented  ;  (3.)  that  it  excites  the  mere 
natural  powers  of  the  soul.  It  is  meant,  2d,  to  affirm,  (1.)  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  acts  immediately  upon  the  soul  from  witliin  ; 
(2.)  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  an  exercise  of  recreative  power,  im- 
plants a  new  moral  nature  or  principle  of  action. 

18.  What  arguments  go  to  show  that  there  is  an  immediate 
influence  of  the  Spirit  on  the  soul,  besides  that  which  is  exerted 
through  the  truth  ? 

1st.  The  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  distinguished  from  that  of 
the  word,  John  vi.,  45,  64,  Q6  ;  Rom.  xv.,  13  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  12-15  ; 
1  Thess.  i.,  5,  6. 

2d.  A  divine  influence  is  declared  to  be  necessary  to  the  recep- 
tion of  the  truth,  Ps.  cxix.,  18  ;  Acts  xvi.,  14 ;  Eph.  i.,  17. 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  339 

3d.  Such  an  internal  operation  on  the  heart  is  attributed  to 
God,  Phil,  ii.,  13  ;  2  Thess.  i.,  11 ;  Heb.  xiii.,  21. 

4th.  The  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  distinguished  from  the  gift  of  the 
word,  John  xiv,,  16  ;  1  Cor.  iii.,  16  ;  vi.,  19  ;  Eph.  iv.,  30. 

5th.  The  nature  of  this  influence  is  evidently  different  from 
that  effected  by  the  truth,  Eph.  i.,  19  ;  iii.,  7.  And  the  effect  is 
called  a  "  new  creation,"  "  ncAv  birth,"  etc.,  etc. 

6th.  Man  by  nature  is  dead  in  sin,  and  needs  such  a  direct 
intervention  of  supernatural  power. — Turettin,  Theo.  Instits.,  L. 
XV.,  Quasstio  4. 

19.  What  are  the  different  reasons  assigned  for  calling  this 
grace  efficacious  ? 

1st.  Most  of  the  Jesuits,  and  the  Arminians,  holding  that  all 
men  receive  sufficient  grace  to  enable  them  to  obey  the  gospel  if 
they  will,  maintain  that  this  grace  becomes  efficacious  when  it  is 
cooperated  with  by  the  will  of  the  individual,  and  in  any  case  is 
proved  to  be  such  only  by  the  event. 

2d.  Bellarmine,  and  others,  maintain  that  the  same  grace 
given  to  all  is  congruous  to  the  moral  nature  of  one  man,  and 
in  that  case  efficacious,  and  incongruous  to  the  nature  of  another, 
and  in  his  case  ineffectual. 

3d.  Some  Romanists  have  maintained  what  is  called  the  doc- 
trine of  cumulative  influence.  The  consent  of  the  soul  is  secured 
by  the  suasive  influence  of  the  spirit,  rendered  effectual  by  con- 
stant repetition  and  long  continuance. 

4th.  The  orthodox  doctrine  is  that  the  efficacy  of  this  grace 
is  inherent  in  its  very  nature,  because  it  is  the  exercise  of  the 
mighty  power  of  God  in  the  execution  of  his  eternal  and  un- 
changeable purpose. 

20.  In  what  sense  is  grace  irresistible  ? 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  true  Christian  is  the  subject 
at  the  same  time  of  those  moral  and  mediate  influences  of  grace 
upo7i  the  ivill,  common  to  him  and  to  the  unconverted,  and  also 
of  those  special  influences  of  grace  ivithin  the  tuill,  which  are  cer- 
tainly efficacious.  The  first  class  of  influences  Christians  may 
and  constantly  do  resist,  through  the  law  of  sin  remaining  in 
their  members.     The  second  class  of  influences  are  certainly  effi- 


340  EFFECTUAL   CALLING. 

cacious,  but  are  neither  resistible  nor  irresistible,  because  they  act 
from  within  and  carry  the  will  spontaneously  with  them.  It  is 
to  be  lamented  that  the  term  irresistible  grace  has  ever  been  used, 
since  it  suggests  the  idea  of  a  mechanical  and  coercive  influence 
upon  an  unwilling  subject,  while,  in  truth,  it  is  the  transcendent 
act  of  the  infinite  Creator,  making  the  creature  spontaneously 
willing. 

21.  Hoio  can  this  grace  he  proved  to  he  certainly  ejfficacious  f 

1st.  By  the  evidence  we  have  given  above,  as  to  its  nature  as 
the  immediate  operation  of  the  mighty  power  of  God. 

2d.  By  the  description  of  the  work  of  grace.  Men  by  nature 
are  "  blind,"  "  dead,"  "  slaves,"  etc.  The  change  effected  is  a 
"  new  creation,"  etc. 

3d.  From  the  promises  of  Grod,  which  are  certain.  The  means 
which  he  uses  to  vindicate  his  own  faithfulness  must  be  effica- 
cious, Ezek.  xxxvi.,  26  ;  xi.,  19  ;  John  vi.,  45. 

4th.  From  the  connection  asserted  by  Scripture  between 
calling  and  election.  The  called  are  the  elect.  As  God's  de- 
crees are  certain,  the  call  must  be  efficacious. — See  above,  ques- 
tion 15. 

5th.  Faith  and  repentance  are  the  gifts  of  God,  and  he  who 
truly  repents  and  believes  is  saved.  Therefore,  the  grace  which 
communicates  those  gifts  is  effectual,  Eph.  ii.,  8  ;  Acts  xi.,  18  ; 
2  Tim.  ii.,  25. 

22.  Hoxv  may  it  he  proved  that  this  influence  is  congruous 
tvith  our  nature  !f 

While  discarding  utterly  the  distinction  made  by  Bellarmine, 
(for  which  see  above,  question  19,)  we  say  that  efficacious  grace  is 
congruous  to  human  nature  as  such,  in  the  sense  that  the  Spirit 
of  God,  while  exerting  an  immediate  and  recreative  influence 
upon  the  soul,  nevertheless  acts  in  perfect  consistency  with  the 
integrity  of  those  laws  of  our  free,  rational,  and  moral  nature, 
which  he  has  himself  constituted.  Even  in  the  miraculous  reve- 
lation of  the  new  birth,  he  acts  upon  our  reasons  and  upon  our 
wills  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  constitution  of  each.  This 
is  certain.  1st.  The  same  God  creates  and  recreates ;  his  object 
is  not  to  destroy,  but  to  restore  his  own  work.     2d.  The  Scrip- 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  341 

tures  and  our  own  experience  teach  that  the  immediately  conse- 
quent acts  of  the  soul  in  the  exercise  of  implanted  grace,  are 
preeminently  rational  and  free.  In  fact,  the  soul  never  acted 
normally  before,  Ps.  ex.,  3 ;  2  Cor.  iii.,  17 ;  Phil .  ii.,  13.  3d.  This 
divine  influence  is  described  by  such  terms  as  "drawing,"  "teach- 
ing," "  enlightening,"  John  vi.,  44,  45 ;  Eph.  i.,  18. 

23.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  connection  of  this 
influence  with  the  truth  ? 

In  the  case  of  the  regeneration  of  infants  the  truth,  of  course, 
is  not  used.  In  the  regeneration  of  adults  the  truth  is  always 
present.  In  the  act  of  regeneration  the  Spirit  acts  immediately 
upon  the  soul,  and  changes  its  subjective  state,  while  the  truth 
is  the  object  consciously  apprehended,  upon  which  the  new  facul- 
ties of  spiritual  discernment  and  the  new  affections  are  exercised. 
The  Spirit  gives  sight,  the  truth  is  the  light  discerned.  The 
Spirit  gives  feeling,  the  truth  presents  the  object  beloved,  Kom. 
X.,  14,  17  ;  James  i.,  18  ;  John  xvii.,  17. 

24.  What  reason  may  be  assigned  for  the  belief  that  the  Spirit 
does  not  renew  those  adults  to  whom  the  truth  is  not  known  ? 

Negatively.  The  Bible  never  leads  us  to  expect  such  an  ex- 
tension of  grace,  and  neither  the  Scriptures  nor  our  own  experi- 
ence among  the  modern  heathen  ever  present  us  with  any  exam- 
ples of  such  a  work. 

Positively.  The  Scriptures  always  associate  all  spiritual  in- 
fluence with  the  truth,  and  declare  the  necessity  of  the  preaching 
the  truth  to  the  end  of  saving  souls,  Rom.  x.,  14. 

25.  What  are  the  objections  to  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  suf- 
ficient grace  ? 

They  hold  that  God  has  willed  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and 
therefore  has  called  all  alike,  giving  to  all  a  grace  sufficient,  if 
they  will  improve  it. 

Wo  object,  1st.  The  external  call  of  the  gospel  has  been  ex- 
tended to  comparatively  few.  The  heathen  are  responsible  with 
the  light  of  nature,  and  under  the  law  of  works,  yet  they  have  no 
means  of  grace,  Rom.  i.,  18-20  ;  ii.,  12-15. 


342  EFFECTUAL   CALLING. 

2d.  This  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  God's  purpose  of  elec- 
tion.— Sec  above,  Chapter  X. 

3d.  According  to  the  Arminian  system  it  depends  upon  the 
free  will  of  the  man  to  make  the  suflScient  grace  of  God  common 
to  all  men  efficient  in  his  case.  But  the  Scriptures  declare  that 
salvation  is  altogether  of  grace,  and  a  gift  of  God,  Eph.  ii.,  8  ;  2 
Tim.  ii.,  25  ;  Rom.  ix.,  15,  16. 

4th.  The  Scriptures  expressly  declare  that  not  even  all  who 
receive  the  external  call  have  sufficient  grace,  ±iom.  ix.,  16-24  ; 
xi.,8. 


CHAPTER    XXVI, 


REGENEK  ATION, 


1.  What  are  the  various  Scripture  terms  by  which  this  work 
of  God  is  designated  ? 

1st.  "  Creating  anew,"  Epli.  iv.,  24.  2d.  "  Begetting,"  James 
i.,  18.  3d.  "  Quickening,"  John  v.,  21 ;  Eph.ii.,  5.  4th.  "Call- 
ing out  of  darkness  into  marvelous  light,"  1  Pet.  ii.,  9.  The 
subjects  of  it  are  said,  1st,  to  be  "  alive  from  the  dead,"  Rom.  vi., 
13.  2d.  To  be  "new  creatures,"  2  Cor.  v.,  17.  3d.  To  be 
"  born  again,"  John  iii.,  3,  7.  4th.  To  be  "  God's  workman- 
ship," Eph.  ii.,  10. 

2.  What  is  the  Pelagian  view  of  regeneration  ? 

They  hold  that  sin  can  be  predicated  only  of  volitions,  and 
that  it  is  essential  to  the  liberty  and  responsibility  of  man  that 
he  is  always  as  able  to  cease  from  as  to  continue  in  sin.  Regen- 
eration is  therefore  a  mere  reformation  of  life  and  habit.  The 
man  who  has  chosen  to  transgress  the  law,  now  chooses  to  obey  it. 

3.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Romish  church  on  this  subject  '^ 

The  Romanists,  1st,  confound  together  justification  and  sancti- 
fication,  making  these  one  act  of  God,  whereby,for  his  own  glory, 
for  Christ's  merits  sake,  by  the  efficient  powers  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  through  the  instrumentality  of  baptism,  he  at  once  cancels 
the  guilt  of  our  sins,  and  delivers  us  from  the  inherent  power  and 
defilement  of  original  sin. — Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  VI.,  Chap.  VII. 

2d.  They  hold  the  doctrine  that  regeneration  is  accomplished 
only  through  the  instrumentality  of  baptism.  This  is  effectual  in 
every  instance  of  its  application  to  an  infant.  In  the  case  of 
adults  its  virtue  may  be  either  resisted  and  nullified,  or  received 
and  improved.     In  baptism  (1.)  sins  are  forgiven  ;  (2.)  the  moral 


344  REGENERATION. 

nature  of  the  subject  is  renewed,  (3.)  he  is  made  a  son  and  heir 
of  God.— Cat.  Eom.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  II. 

4.  What  are  the  different  views  as  to  baptismal  regeneration 
entertained  in  the  Church  of  England  ? 

1st.  The  theory  of  the  party  styled  Puseyite,  which  is  identical 
with  that  of  the  Romish  church. 

2d.  That  of  a  large  party  most  ahly  represented  by  the  late 
Bishop  H.  U.  Underdonk,  in  his  "  Essay  on  Regeneration,  Phila., 
1835."  He  maintained  that  there  are  two  distinct  regener- 
ations ;  one  a  change  of  state  or  relation,  and  the  other  a  change 
of  nature.  The  first  is  baptismal,  the  second  moral,  though  both 
are  spiritual  in  so  far  as  both  are  wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  first  or  baptismal  regeneration  is  a  new  birth,  since  it  con- 
stitutes us  sons  of  God,  as  the  Jews  were  made  his  jjeculiar  peo- 
ple by  that  covenant,  the  seal  of  which  was  circumcision.  The 
second  is  a  new  birth,  or  creation  in  a  higher  sense,  being  a  grad- 
ual sanctifying  change  wrought  in  the  whole  moral  character  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  necessarily  connected  with  baptism. 

5.  What  view  of  regeneration  is  held  by  those  in  America  who 
maintain  the  "  Exercise  Scheme  ?" 

These  theologians  deny  the  existence  in  the  soul  of  any  per- 
manent moral  habits  or  dispositions,  and  admit  the  existence  only 
of  the  soul  or  agent  and  his  acts  or  "  exercises."  In  the  natural 
man  the  series  of  acts  are  wholly  depraved.  In  the  regenerated  man 
a  new  series  of  holy  acts  are  created  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  con- 
tinued by  his  power. — Emmons,  Sermon  LXI V.,  on  the  New  Birth. 

6.  What  is  the  New  Haven  view,  advocated  by  Dr.  N.  W. 
Taylor,  on  this  subject  ? 

Dr.  Taylor  agreed  with  the  advocates  of  the  "  Exercise 
Scheme,"  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  soul  but  the  agent  and  his 
actions  ;  but  he  differed  from  them  by  holding  that  man  and  not 
God  is  the  independent  author  of  human  actions.  He  held  that 
when  God  and  the  world  is  held  up  before  the  mind  regeneration 
consists  in  an  act  of  the  sinner  in  choosing  God  as  his  chief  good, 
thus  confounding  regeneration  and  conversion.  The  Holy  Spirit, 
in  some  unknown  way,  assists  in  restraining  the  active  operation 


APPLICATION   OF    REDEMPTION.  345 

of  the  natural,  selfish  principle  which  prefers  the  world  as  its 
chief  good.  "  A  mind  thus  detached  from  the  world  as  its  su- 
preme good  instantly  chooses  God  for  its  portion,  under  the  im- 
pulse of  that  inherent  desire  for  happiness,  without  which  no 
object  could  ever  he  regarded  as  good,  as  either  desirable  or 
lovely."  This  original  motive  to  that  choice  of  God  which  is 
regeneration  is  merely  natural,  and  neither  morally  good  nor  bad. 
Thus,  1st.  Kegeneration  is  man's  own  act.  2d.  The  Holy  Spirit 
helps  man,  (1.)  by  suspending  the  controlling  power  of  his  sin- 
ful, selfish  disposition  ;  (2.)  by  presenting  to  his  mind  in  the  clear 
light  of  truth  the  superiority  of  God  as  an  object  of  choice.  3d. 
Then  the  sinner  chooses  God  as  his  chief  good  under  the  convic- 
tion of  his  understanding,  and  from  a  motive  of  natural,  though 
not  sinful,  self-love,  which  is  to  be  distinguished  from  selfishness, 
which  is  of  the  essence  of  sin. — See  Christian  Spectator,  Decem- 
ber, 1829,  pp.  693,  694,  etc. 

7.  What  is  the  common  doctrine  held  by  evangelical  Chris- 
tians ? 

1st.  That  there  are  in  the  soul,  besides  its  several  faculties, 
habits,  or  dispositions,  of  which  some  are  innate  and  others  are 
acquired,  which  lay  the  foundation  for  the  soul's  exercising  its 
faculties  in  some  particular  way.  Thus  we  intuitively  judge  a 
man's  moral  disposition  to  be  permanently  evil  when  we  see  him 
habitually  acting  sinfully,  or  to  be  permanently  good  when  we 
see  him  habitually  acting  righteously. 

2d.  These  dispositions  are  anterior  to  moral  action,  and  deter- 
mine its  character  as  good  or  evil. 

3d.  In  creation  God  made  the  disposition  of  Adam's  heart 
holy. 

4th.  In  the  new  creation  God  recreates  the  governing  disposi- 
tion of  the  regenerated  man's  heart  holy. 

It  is,  therefore,  properly  called  a  "regeneration,"  a  "new 
creation,"  a  "  new  birth." 

8.  When  it  is  said  that  regeneration  consists  in  giving  a  new 
heart,  or  in  implanting  a  new  principle  or  disposition,  lohat  is 
meant  hj  the  terms  "heart,"  "principle,"  or  "disposition  ?" 

President  Edwards  says,  "  By  a  principle  of  nature  in  this 


346  REGENERATION. 

place,  I  mean  that  foundation  which  is  laid  in  nature,  either  old 
or  new,  for  any  particular  kind  or  manner  of  exercise  of  the  facul- 
ties of  the  soul.  So  this  new  '  spiritual  sense'  is  not  a  new  faculty 
of  understanding,  but  it  is  a  new  foundation  laid  in  the  nature 
of  the  soul  for  a  new  kind  of  exercise  of  the  same  faculty  of 
understanding.  So  that  new  holy  disposition  of  heart  that  at- 
tends this  new  sense  is  not  a  new  faculty  of  will,  hut  a  founda- 
tion laid  in  the  nature  of  the  soul  for  a  new  kind  of  exercise  of 
the  same  faculty  of  will." — ^Edwards  on  Religious  Affections, 
Pt.  III.  sec.  1. 

The  term  "  heart,"  signifying  that  prevailing  moral  disposition 
that  determines  the  volitions  and  actions,  is  the  phrase  most 
commonly  used  in  Scripture,  Matt,  xii.,  33,  35  ;  xv.,  19  ;  Luke 
vi.,  43,  45. 

9.  How  may  it  be  shoion  that  this  vietv  of  regeneration  does  not 
represent  it  as  involving  any  change  in  the  essence  of  the  soul  ? 

This  charge  is  brought  against  the  orthodox  doctrine  by  all 
those  who  deny  that  there  is  any  thing  in  the  soul  but  its  consti- 
tutional faculties  and  their  exercises.  They  hence  argue  that  if 
any  thing  be  changed  except  the  mere  exercises  of  the  soul,  its 
fundamental  constitution  would  be  physically  altered.  In  oppo- 
sition to  this,  we  argue  that  we  have  precisely  the  same  evidence 
for  the  existence  of  a  permanent  moral  quality  or  disposition  in- 
herent in  the  will,  as  the  reason  why  a  good  man  acts  habitually 
righteously,  or  a  bad  man  viciously,  that  we  have  for  the  exist- 
ence of  the  invisible  soul  itself,  or  of  any  of  its  faculties  as  the 
reason  why  a  man  acts  at  all,  or  why  his  actions  are  such  as 
thought,  emotion,  volition.  It  is  not  possible  for  us  to  conceive 
of  the  choice  being  produced  in  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  more 
than  three  ways.  "  First,  by  his  direct  agency  in  producing  the 
choice,  in  which  case  it  would  be  no  act  of  ours.  Second,  by  ad- 
dressing such  motives  to  our  constitutional  and  natural  principles 
of  self-love  as  would  induce  us  to  make  the  choice,  in  which  case 
there  would  be  no  morality  in  the  act.  Or,  thirdly,  by  jiroducing 
such  a  relish  for  the  divine  character,  that  the  soul  as  spontane- 
ously and  immediately  rejoices  in  God  as  its  portion  as  it  rejoices 
in  the  perception  of  beauty." 

"  If  our  Maker  can  endow  us,  not  only  with  the  general  sus- 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  347 

ceptibility  of  love,  but  also  with  a  specific  disposition  to  love  our 
children  ;  if  he  can  give  us  a  discernment  and  susceptibility  of 
natural  beauty,  he  may  give  us  a  taste  for  spiritual  loveliness. 
And  if  that  taste,  by  reason  of  sin,  is  vitiated  and  perverted,  he 
may  restore  it  by  means  of  his  spirit  in  regeneration." — Hodge's 
Essays. 

10.  In  what  sense  may  the  soul  he  said  to  he  passive  in  regen- 
eration ? 

Dr.  Taylor  maintains  that  regeneration  is  that  act  of  the  soul 
in  which  man  chooses  God  as  his  portion.  Thus,  the  man  him- 
self, and  not  God,  is  the  agent. 

But  the  Christian  church,  on  the  contrary,  holds  that  in  re- 
generation the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  agent,  and  man  the  subject. 
The  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  implanting  a  new  principle,  does 
not  interfere  with  the  essential  activity  of  the  soul  itself,  but  sim- 
ply gives  to  that  activity  a  new  direction,  for  the  soul,  though 
active,  is  nevertheless  capable  of  being  acted  upon.  And  although 
the  soul  is  necessarily  active  at  the  very  time  it  is  regenerated, 
yet  it  is  lightly  said  to  be  passive  with  respect  to  that  act  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  whereby  it  is  regenerated. 

1st.  The  soul,  under  the  conviction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in 
the  exercise  of  merely  natural  feelings,  regards  some  aspect  of 
saving  truth,  and  strives  to  embrace  it.  2d.  The  Holy  Ghost, 
by  an  exertion  of  creative  power,  changes  the  governing  disposi- 
tion of  the  heart  in  a  manner  inscrutable,  and  by  an  influence  not 
apprehended  by  the  consciousness  of  the  subject.  3d.  Simulta- 
neously the  soul  exercises  new  affections  and  experimentally  em- 
braces the  truth. 

11.  What  is  the  difference  hetween  regeneration  and  conver- 
sion ? 

The  term  conversion  is  often  used  in  a  wide  sense  as  including 
both  the  change  of  nature  and  the  exercise  of  that  nature  as 
changed.  When  distinguished  from  regeneration,  however,  con- 
version signifies  the  first  exercise  of  the  new  disposition  implanted 
in  regeneration,  i.  e.,  in  freely  turning  unto  God. 

Regeneration  is  God's  act ;  conversion  is  ours.  Regeneration 
is  the  implantation  of  a  gracious  principle ;  conversion  is  the  ex- 


348  REGENERATION. 

ercise  of  that  principle.  Regeneration  is  never  a  matter  of  direct 
consciousness  to  the  subject  of  it ;  conversion  always  is  such  to  the 
agent  of  it.  Regeneration  is  a  single  act,  complete  in  itself,  and 
never  repeated  ;  conversion,  as  the  beginning  of  holy  living,  is  the 
commencement  of  a  series,  constant,  endless,  and  progressive. 
"  Draw  me,  and  I  will  run  after  thee,"  Cant,  i.,  4. 

12.  Hoiu  can  it  he  proved  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  that 
commonly  called  regeneration  ? 

1st.  By  those  Scriptures  that  declare  such  a  change  to  be 
necessary,  John  iii.,  3  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  17  ;  Gal.  vi.,  15. 

2d.  By  those  passages  which  describe  the  change,  Eph.  ii.,  5  ; 
iv.,  24 ;  James  i.,  18 ;  1  Pet.  i.,  23. 

3d.  From  the  fact  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  most  moral 
as  well  as  for  the  most  profligate,  1  Cor.  xv.,  10 ;  Gal.  i.,  13-16. 

4th.  That  this  inward  change  is  not  a  mere  reformation  is 
proved  by  its  being  referred  to  the  Holy  Spuit,  Eph.  i.,  19,  20 ; 
Titus  iii.,  5. 

5th.  From  the  comparison  of  man's  state  in  grace  with  his 
state  by  nature,  Rom.  vi.,  13 ;  viii.,  6-10 ;  Eph.  v.,  8. 

6th.  From  the  experience  of  all  Christians,  and  from  the  tes- 
timony of  their  lives. 

13.  What  is  the  nature  of  supernatural  illumination  ? 

The  soul  of  man  is  a  unit.  A  radically  defective  or  perverted 
condition  of  any  faculty  will  injuriously  affect  the  exercise  of  all 
the  other  faculties.  The  essence  of  sin  consists  in  the  perverted 
moral  dispositions  and  affections  of  the  will.  But  a  perverted 
condition  of  these  aflections  must  affect  the  exercises  of  the  in- 
tellect, concerning  all  moral  objects,  as  much  as  the  volitions 
themselves.  We  can  not  love  or  desire  any  object  unless  we  per- 
ceive its  loveliness,  neither  can  we  intellectually  perceive  its  love- 
liness unless  its  qualities  are  congenial  to  our  inherent  taste  or 
dispositions.  Sin,  therefore,  is  essentially  deceitful,  and  man  as 
a  sinner  is  spiritually  blind.  This  does  not  consist  in  any  jAysi- 
cal  defect.  He  possesses  all  the  faculties  requisite  to  enable  him 
to  see  the  beauty,  and  to  experience  the  power  of  the  truth,  but 
his  whole  nature  is  morally  perverted  through  his  evil  disposi- 


APPLICATION   OF   KEDEMPTION.  349 

tions.  As  soon  as  these  are  changed  he  will  see,  and,  seeing,  love 
and  obey  the  truth,  although  no  constitutional  change  is  wrought 
in  his  nature,  i.  c,  no  new  faculty  given,  but  only  his  perverted 
faculties  morally  rectified.  This  illumination  is  called  super- 
natural, 1st,  because,  having  been  lost,  it  can  be  restored  only  by 
the  immediate  power  of  God.  2d.  In  contradistinction  to  the 
mained  condition  of  man's  present  depraved  nature.  It,  how- 
ever, conveys  no  new  truths  to  the  mind,  nor  does  it  relieve  the 
Christian,  in  any  degree,  from  the  diligent  and  prayerful  study 
of  the  Word,  nor  does  it  lead  to  any  fanciful  interpretations  of 
Sci'ipture  foreign  to  the  plain  sense  of  the  letter,  it  only  leads  to 
the  perception  and  appreciation  of  the  native  spiritual  beauty  and 
power  of  the  inspired  word,  and  the  truths  therein  revealed, 

14.  Hoiu  may  it  he  p7'0ved  that  believers  are  the  subjects  of 
such  illumination  ? 

1st.  It  is  necessaiy,  1  Cor.  ii.,  14  ;  2  Cor.  iii.,  14  ;  iv.,  3 ; 
John  xvi.,  3,  From  the  constitution  of  our  nature  we  must  ap- 
prehend an  object  as  lovely  before  we  can  love  it  for  its  own  sake. 
2d.  The  Scriptures  expressly  affirm  it.  "  To  know  Grod  is 
eternal  life,"  John  xvii.,  3  ;  1  Cor.  ii.,  12,  13  ;  2  Cor.  iv.,  6  ; 
Eph.  i.,  18 ;  Phil,  i.,  9  ;  Col.  iii.,  10 ;  1  John  iv.,  7 ;  v.,  20  ;  Ps. 
xix.,  7,  8  ;  xliii.,  3,  4. 

As  the  soul  is  a  unite,  a  change  in  its  radical  moral  dispo- 
sitions must  simultaneously  modify  the  exercise  of  all  its  facul- 
ties in  relation  to  moral  and  spiritual  objects.  The  soul  can  not 
love  that  the  loveliness  of  which  it  does  not  perceive,  neither  can 
it  perceive  the  loveliness  of  an  object  which  is  totally  uncongenial 
to  its  own  nature.  The  first  efiect  of  regeneration,  or  a  radical 
change  of  moral  disposition,  in  the  order  of  nature,  therefore,  is 
to  open  the  eyes  of  our  understandings  to  the  excellency  of  divine 
truth,  and  the  second  effect  is  the  going  forth  of  the  renewed 
affections  toward  that  excellency  so  perceived.  This  is  what  Pres. 
Edwards  (Religious  Affections,  Pt.  III.,  sec.  4)  calls  "  the  sense 
of  the  heart." 

15.  WJiat  is  the  nature  of  that  conviction  of  sin  which  is  the 
attendant  of  7'egeneration  ? 

Spiritual  illumination  immediately  leads  to  the  perception  of 
the  righteousness,  goodness,  and  exceeding  breadth  and  exactness 
of  God's  law,  and  by  contrast  of  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin 


350  REGENEBATION. 

in  the  abstract,  Kom.  vii.,  7,  13  ;  and  above  all  of  his  own  sin — 
thus  revealing,  in  contrast  to  the  divine  purity  and  righteousness, 
the  pollution  of  his  own  heart,  liis  total  ill-desert,  and  his  entire 
helplessness  in  all  his  relations  to  God,  Job  xlii.,  5,  6.  This  is  a 
practical  experimental  knowledge, — produced  by  the  wrestling 
eXeyxog,  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (John  xvi.,  8) — of  guilt,  of  pollution, 
and  of  helplessness. 

16.  IVhat  is  the  nature  of  that  conviction  of  sin  which  often 
occurs  before  or  without  regeneration^  and  how  may  it  he  distin- 
guished from  the  genuine  ? 

Natural  conscience  is  an  essential  and  indestructible  element 
of  human  nature,  including  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  and  pain- 
ful emotions  associated  with  a  sense  of  the  latter.  Although  this 
faculty  may  be  for  a  time  perverted,  and  the  sensibility  associated 
with  it  hardened,  yet  it  may  be,  and  often  is,  in  the  case  of  the 
unregenerate  quickened  to  a  painful  activity,  leading  to  a  senes 
of  ill  desert,  pollution,  helplessness  and  danger.  In  eternity  this 
will  constitute  a  large  measure  of  the  sufferings  of  the  lost. 

On  the  other  hand,  that  conviction  of  sin  which  is  peculiar  to 
the  regenerate  is  distinguished  by  being  accompanied  by  a  sense 
of  the  positive  beauty  of  holiness,  and  an  earnest  desire  to  escape 
not  merely  the  pangs  of  remorse,  but  chiefly  the  pollution  and 
the  dominion  of  sin. 

17.  What  is  the  nature  of  those  new  affections  luhich  flow 
from  the  renewal  of  the  heart,  and  how  are  they  distinguished 
from  the  exercises  of  unrenewed  men  ? 

Spiritual  illumination  gives  the  perception  of  that  loveliness 
which  the  renewed  affections  of  the  heart  embrace  and  delight  in. 
These  are  spiritual  because  they  are  formed  in  us,  and  preserved 
in  healthy  exercise  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  They  are  holy  because 
their  objects  are  holy,  and  because  they  delight  in  their  objects  as 
holy.  The  affections  of  unrenewed  men,  on  the  other  hand,  how- 
ever pure  or  even  religious  they  may  be,  are  merely  natural  in 
then-  source,  and  attach  merely  to  natural  objects.  They  may  be 
grateful  to  God  for  his  benefits,  but  they  never  love  him  simply 
for  the  perfections  of  his  own  nature. 

18.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  nciv  obedience  ichich  results 
from  regeneration,  and  how  does  it  differ  from  mere  morality  ? 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  351 

The  perfect  law  is  spiritual,  and  consequently  requires  per- 
fect conformity  of  being  as  well  as  of  action  ;  the  central  and  gov- 
erning principles  of  life  must  be  in  harmony  with  it.  The  re- 
generate man,  therefore,  thinks,  and  feels,  and  wills,  and  acts  in 
conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  whole  word  of  Grod  as  far  as  re- 
vealed to  him,  because  it  is  God's  word,  from  a  motive  of  love  to 
God,  and  with  an  eye  single  to  his  glory.  The  sanctified  affec- 
tions are  the  spring,  the  heart-searching  law  the  rule,  and  the 
glory  of  God  the  end,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  the  co-worker  in  every 
act  of  Christian  obedience. 

Morality,  on  the  other  hand,  has  its  spring  in  the  merely  na- 
tural affections  ;  it  aims  only  at  the  conformity  of  the  outward 
actions  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  while  self,  in  some  form  of  self- 
righteousness,  reputation,  safety,  or  happiness,  is  the  determin- 
mg  end. 

19.  Hoio  may  the  absolute  necessity  of  regeneration  he 
proved  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  assert  it,  John  iii.,  3;  Rom.  viii.,  6;  Eph. 
ii.,  10 ;  iv.,  21-24.  2d.  It  is  proved  from  the  nature  of  man  as  a 
sinner,  Rom.  vii.,  18  ;  viii.,  7-9  ;  1  Cor.  ii.,  14 ;  Eph.  ii.,  1.  3d. 
From  the  nature  of  heaven,  Isa.  xxxv.,  8  ;  Iii.,  1  ;  Matt,  v.,  8  ; 
xiii.,  41  ;  Heb.  xii.,  14  ;  Rev.  xxi.,  27.  The  restoration  of  holi- 
ness is  the  grand  end  of  the  whole  plan  of  salvation,  Eph.  i.,  4  ; 
v.,  5,  26,  27. 

20.  Are  infants  susceptible  of  regeneration  ;  and,  if  so,  luhat 
is  the  nature  of  regeneration  in  them  ? 

Infants,  as  well  as  adults,  are  rational  and  moral  agents,  and 
by  nature  totally  depraved.  The  difference  is,  that  the  faculties 
of  infants  are  in  the  germ,  while  those  of  adults  are  developed. 
As  regeneration  is  a  change  wrought  by  creative  power  in  the  in- 
herent moral  condition  of  the  soul,  infants  may  plainly  be  the 
subjects  of  it  in  precisely  the  same  sense  as  adults,  in  both  cases- 
the  operation  is  miraculous,  and  therefore  inscrutible. 

The  fact  is  established  by  what  the  Scriptures  teach  of  innate 
depravity,  of  infant  salvation,  of  infant  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism, Luke  i.,  15  ;  xviii.,  15,  16  ;  Acts  ii.,  39. — See  below, 
Chapter  XXXIX. 


CHAPTER     XXVII. 

FAITH, 

1.  What,  according  to  its  etymology  and  New  Testament 
usage,  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  mong,  "faith,"  "belief?" 

It  is  derived  from  the  verb  -rreidu),  to  persuade,  convince.  In 
the  New  Testament  it  is  used,  1st.  To  expresss  that  state  of  mind 
which  is  induced  by  persuasion,  Rom.  xiv.,  22.  2d.  It  often  sig- 
nifies good  faith,  fidelity,  sincerity,  Rom.  iii,,  3  ;  Titus  ii.,  10. 
3d.  Assent  to  the  truth,  Phil,  i.,  27  ;  2  Thes.  ii.,  13.  4th.  Faith 
towards,  on,  or  in  Grod,  {km,  dg  -rrpog,)  Heb.  vi.,  1  ;  1  Thes.  i.,  8  ; 
1  Pet.  i.,  21  ;  Mark  xi.,  22.  In  Christ,  Acts,  xxiv.,  24  ;  Gal.  iii., 
26  ;  and  in  his  blood,  Rom.  iii.,  22,  25  ;  Gal.  ii.,  16,  20.  5th.  It 
is  used  for  the  object  of  faith,  viz.,  the  revelation  of  the  gospel, 
Rom.  i.,  5  ;  x.,  8  ;  1  Tim.  iv.,  1. — Robinson's  Lex.  of  New 
Testament. 

2.  State  the  different  meanings  of  the  verb  Tnarevecv  (to  believe), 
and  of  the  phrases  -nioTtvuv  eig,  or  tm  {to  believe  in  or  upon.) 

Tnareveiv  signifies — 

1st.  To  assent  to,  to  be  persuaded  of  the  truth,  Luke  i.,  20  ; 
John  iii.,  12. 

2d.  To  credit  the  truth  of  a  person,  John  v.,  46. 

3d.  To  trust,  to  have  confidence  in,  Acts  xxvii.,  25. 

The  phrases  mareveiv  elg,  or  t-irt,  arc  always  used  to  express 
trust  and  confidence  terminating  upon  God,  or  upon  Christ  as 
Mediator.  We  are  often  said  to  believe  or  credit  Moses  or  other 
teachers  of  the  truth,  but  we  can  believe  in  or  on  God  or  Christ 
alone.  Upon  God,  John  xiv.,  1  ;  Rom.  iv.,  24  ;  1  Pet.  i.,  21 ; 
upon  Christ,  Acts  xvi.,  31  ;  John  iii.,  15-18. 

3.  How  may  faith  be  defined  ? 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  3^ 

Faith  is  a  complex  act  of  the  soul,  involving  the  concurrent 
action  of  the  understanding  and  the  will,  and  modified  in  differ- 
ent instances  of  its  exercise  by  the  nature  of  its  object,  and  of  the 
evidence  upon  which  it  rests.  The  most  general  definition,  em- 
bracing all  its  modifications,  affirms  faith  to  be  "  assent  to  truth 
upon  the  exhibition  of  the  aj)propriate  evidence.  But  it  is  evident 
that  its  nature  must  vary  with  the  nature  of  the  truth  believed, 
and  especially  with  the  nature  of  the  evidence  upon  which  our 
assent  is  founded.  Assent  to  a  speculative  or  abstract  truth  is  a 
speculative  act ;  assent  to  a  moral  truth  is  a  moral  act  ;  assent 
to  a  promise  made  to  ourselves  is  an  act  of  trust.  Our  belief 
that  the  earth  moves  round  its  axis  is  a  mere  assent ;  our  be- 
lief in  the  excellence  of  virtue  is  of  the  nature  of  a  moral  judg- 
ment ;  our  belief  in  a  promise  is  an  act  of  trust."  So  like- 
wise with  respect  to  the  evidence  upon  which  our  faith  is 
founded.  "  The  same  man  may  believe  the  same  truth  on  differ- 
ent grounds.  One  may  believe  the  Christian  system  simply  be- 
cause others  around  him  believe  it,  and  he  has  been  brought  up 
to  receive  it  without  question  ;  this  is  the  faith  of  creduHty. 
Another  may  believe  it  on  the  ground  of  its  external  evidence, 
e.  g.,  of  miracle,  prophecy,  history,  its  logical  consistency  as  a  sys- 
tem, or  its  plausibiHty  as  a  theory  in  accounting  for  the  pheno- 
mena of  creation  and  providence.  This  is  speculative  faith.  An- 
other may  believe,  because  the  truths  of  the  Bible  recommend 
themselves  to  his  reason  and  conscience,  and  accord  with  his  in- 
ward experience.  This  faith  is  founded  on  moral  evidence. 
There  is  another  faith  founded  on  the  intrinsic  excellence,  beauty, 
and  suitableness  of  the  truth  from  a  sense  and  love  of  its  moral 
excellence.  This  is  spiritual  faith,  which  is  the  gift  of  God." — ■ 
Way  of  Life. 

4.  How  far  is  faith  an  act  of  the  understanding ,  and  how  far 
an  act  of  the  will  ? 

The  one  indivisible  soul  knows  and  loves,  desires  and  decides, 
and  these  several  acts  of  the  soul  meet  on  the  same  object.  The 
soul  can  neither  love,  desire,  nor  choose  that  which  it  does  not 
know,  nor  can  it  know  an  object  as  true  or  good  without  some 
affection  of  will  towards  it.  Assent  to  a  purely  speculative  tmth 
may  be  simply  an  act  of  understanding,  but  belief  in  a  moral 

23 


354  FAITH. 

truth,  in  testimony,  in  promises,  must  be  a  complex  act,  em- 
bracing both  the  understanding  and  the  will.  The  understanding 
apprehends  the  truth  to  be  believed,  and  decides  upon  the  valid- 
ity of  the  evidence,  but  the  disposition  to  believe  testimony,  ov 
moral  evidence,  has  its  foundation  in  the  will.  Actual  trust  in  :i 
promise  is  an  act  of  the  will,  and  not  a  simple  judgment  as  to  i;s 
trustworthiness.  There  is  an  exact  relation  between  the  moral 
judgment  and  the  affections,  and  the  will,  as  the  seat  of  the 
moral  affections,  determines  the  moral  judgments.  Therefore,  as 
a  man  is  responsible  for  his  will,  he  is  responsible  for  his  faith. 

5.  What  is  the  difference  between  knowledge  and  faith  ? 
Generally,  knowledge  is  the  apprehension  of  an  object  as  true, 

and  faith  is  an  assent  to  its  truth.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that 
in  this  general  sense  of  the  term  every  exercise  of  faith  includes 
the  knowledge  of  the  object  assented  to.  It  is  impossible  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  apprehension  of  the  truthfulness  of  a  purely 
speculative  truth  and  an  assent  to  it  as  true.  In  such  a  case  faith 
and  knowledge  appear  identical.  But  while  the  apprehension  of 
the  trustworthiness  of  a  promise  is  knowledge,  the  actual  reliance 
upon  it  is  faith.  The  apprehension  of  the  moral  truthfulness  of 
an  object  is  knowledge,  the  assent  to  it,  as  good  and  desirable,  is 
faith. 

Sometimes  the  Scriptures  use  the  word  knowledge  as  equiva- 
lent to  faith,  John  x.,  38 ;  1  John  ii.,  3. 

Generally,  however,  the  Scriptures  restrict  the  term  knowledge 
to  the  apprehension  of  those  ideas  which  we  derive  through  the 
natural  sources  of  sensation  and  reason  and  human  testimony, 
while  the  term  faith  is  restricted  to  the  assent  to  those  truths 
which  rest  upon  the  direct  testimony  of  God  alone,  objectively 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  as  discerned  through  spiritual  illumi- 
nation. Thus,  faith  is  the  "  evidence  of  things  not  seen,"  Heb. 
xi.,  1.  We  are  commanded  "  to  walk  by  faith,  and  not  by  sight," 
2  Cor.  v.,  7.  Here  the  distinction  between  faith  and  knowledge 
has  reference  particularly  to  the  mode  of  knowing.  The  one  is 
natural  and  discursive,  the  other  supernatural  and  intuitive. 

6,  What  distinction  do  the  Romanists  make  between  implicit 
and  explicit  faith  ? 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  355 

Romanists  and  Protestants  agree  that  it  is  not  essential  to 
faith  that  its  object  should  be  comprehended  by  the  understand- 
ing. But,  on  the  other  hand,  Protestants  affirm,  and  Romanists 
deny,  that  it  is  essential  that  the  object  beKeved  should  be  appre- 
hended by  the  mind  ;  that  is,  that  knowledge  of  what  we  believe 
is  essential  to  faith.  The  Romanists,  therefore,  have  invented 
the  distinction  between  explicit  faith,  which  terminates  upon  an 
object  distinctly  apprehended  by  the  mind,  and  implicit  faith, 
which  a  man  exercises  in  the  truth  of  propositions  of  which  he 
knows  nothing.  They  hold  that  if  a  man  exercises  explicit  faith 
in  a  general  proposition,  he  therein  exercises  implicit  faith  in 
every  thing  embraced  in  it,  whether  he  knows  what  they  are  or 
not.  If  a  man,  for  instance,  has  explicit  faith  that  the  church  is 
an  infallible  teacher,  he  thereby  exercises  virtual  or  implicit  faith 
in  every  doctrine  taught  by  the  church,  although  he  may  be  igno- 
rant as  to  what  those  doctrines  are.  They  distinguish,  moreover, 
between  those  truths  which  it  is  necessary  to  regard  with  explicit 
faith,  and  those  which  may  be  held  implicitly.  They  commonly 
teach  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  people  to  hold  only  three  doc- 
trines explicitly,  1st,  that  God  is  ;  2d,  that  he  is  a  rewarder, 
including  future  rewards  and  punishments  ;  3d,  that  he  is  a  re- 
deemer. 

"  This  doctrine  has  been  recently  revived  by  the  Puseyites, 
under  the  title  of  reserve.  The  distinguishing  truths  of  the  gos- 
pel, instead  of  being  clearly  presented,  should,  it  is  said,  be  con- 
cealed or  kept  in  reserve.  The  people  may  gaze  upon  the  cross 
as  the  symbol  of  redemption,  but  need  not  know  whether  it  is  the 
form,  or  the  material,  or  the  great  sacrifice  once  enacted  on  it,  to 
which  the  efficacy  is  due.  '  Religious  light  is  intellectual  dark- 
ness,' says  Dr.  Newman.  This  theory  rests  upon  the  same  false 
assumption  that  faith  can  exist  without  knowledge." — Dr.  Hodge. 

7.  What  is  the  difference  hetiveen  knowing  and  understanding 
a  thing,  and  how  far  is  knowledge  essential  to  faith  ? 

We  know  a  thing  when  we  simply  apprehend  it  as  true.  We 
understand  it  only  when  we  fully  comprehend  its  nature,  and  the 
perfect  consistency  of  all  its  properties  with  each  other  and  with 
the  entire  system  of  things  of  which  it  forms  a  part.     We  know 


356  FAITH. 

the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  when  its  several  parts  are  stated  to  us, 
but  no  creature  can  ever  understand  it. 

That  knowledge,  or  simple  apprehension  of  the  object  believed 
and  confided  in,  is  essential  to  faith  is  evident  from  the  nature  of 
faith  itself  It  is  that  state  of  mind  which  bears  the  relation  of 
assent  to  a  certain  object,  involving  that  action  of  und(>rstanding 
and  of  will  which  is  appropriate  to  that  object.  If  a  man  loves, 
fears,  or  believes,  he  must  love,  fear,  or  believe  some  object,  for  it 
is  evident  that  these  states  of  mind  can  exist  only  in  relation  to 
their  appropriate  objects.  If  a  real  object  is  not  present  the 
imagination  may  present  an  ideal  one,  but  that  very  fiction  of 
the  imagination  must  first  be  apprehended  as  true  (or  known) 
before  it  can  be  assented  to  as  true  (or  believed.)  Just  as  it  is 
impossible  for  a  man  to  enjoy  beauty  without  perceiving  it  in 
some  object  of  the  mind,  or  to  exercise  complacent  love  in  a  vir- 
tuous act  without  perceiving  it,  so  it  is,  for  the  same  reason,  im- 
possible for  a  man  to  exercise  faith  without  knowing  what  he  be- 
lieves.    "  Implicit  faith"  is  a  perfectly  unmeaning  formula. 

8.  Hoiv  can  the  fact  that  knowledge  is  essential  to  faith  be 
proved  from  Scripture  ? 

1st.  From  the  etymology  of  the  word  niang,  from  netdo),  to 
persuade,  instruct.  Faith  is  that  state  of  mind  which  is  the  re- 
sult of  teaching.  2d.  From  the  use  of  the  word  knowledge  in 
Sciipture  as  equivalent  to  faith,  John  x.,  38  ;  1  John  ii.,  3.  3d. 
From  what  the  Bible  teaches  as  to  the  source  of  faith.  It  comes 
by  teaching,  Eom.  x.,  14-17.  4th.  The  Scriptures  declare  that 
the  regenerate  are  enlightened,  have  received  the  unction,  and 
know  all  things.  Acts  xxvi.,  18  ;  1  Cor.  ii.,  12-15  ;  Col.  iii.,  10. 
5th.  The  means  of  salvation  consist  in  the  dissemination  of  the 
truth.  Christ  is  the  great  teacher.  Ministers  are  teachers,  1 
Cor.  iv.,  1  ;  1  Tim.,  iii.,  2  ;  iv.,  13.  Christians  are  begotten  by 
the  truth,  sanctified  by  the  truth,  John  xvii.,  19  :  James  i.,  18. — 
Dr.  Hodge. 

9.  Hoiv  are  those  passages  to  he  explained  lohich  speak  of 
knowledge  as  distinguished  from  faith  ? 

Although  every  act  of  faith  presupposes  an  act  of  knowledge, 
yet  both  the  faith  and  the  knowledge  vary  very  much,  both  with 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  357 

the  nature  of  tlie  object  known  and  believed,  and  with  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  knowledge  is  received,  and  with  the  evidence 
upon  which  the  faith  rests.  The  faith  which  the  Scriptures  dis- 
tinguish from  knowledge  is  the  strong  persuasion  of  things  not 
seen.  It  is  the  conviction  of  the  truth  of  things  which  do  not 
fall  within  the  compass  of  our  own  observation  which  may  entirely 
transcend  the  powers  of  our  understanding,  and  which  rest  upon 
the  simple  testimony  of  Grod.  This  testimony  faith  relies  upon 
in  spite  of  whatever  to  human  reason  appears  inconsistent  or  im- 
possible. 

Knowledge,  though  essential  to  faith  may  be  distinguished 
from  it,  1st,  as  faith  includes  also  an  act  of  the  will  assenting,  in 
addition  to  the  act  of  the  understanding  apprehending.  2d.  As 
knowledge  derived  through  a  natural  is  distinguished  from  knowl- 
edge derived  through  a  divine  source.  3d.  As  present  imperfect 
aj)prehension  of  divine  things  {{.  e.,  faith)  differs  from  that  per- 
fect knowledge  of  divine  things  we  shall  have  in  heaven,  1  Cor. 
xiii.,  12. 

10.  If  faith  necessarily  includes  knowledge,  liow  can  men  he 
commanded  to  believe  ? 

1st.  No  man  is  ever  commanded  to  believe  that  which  is  not 
revealed  to  him,  either  in  the  light  of  nature  or  by  the  inspired 
word.  2d.  No  man  is  ever  commanded  to  believe  a  purely  specu- 
lative truth.  The  truths  of  religion  rest  on  the  testimony  of 
God.  They  are  enforced  by  moral  evidence,  and  faith  in  them 
involves  a  moral  and  spiritual  knowledge  of  them,  and  delight  in 
them.  Moral  evidence  can  be  appreciated  only  by  a  mind  pos- 
sessed of  moral  sensibility.  And  such  moral  insensibility  as  leads 
to  blindness  to  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong  is  itself 
a  very  aggravated  state  of  depravity. 

The  Scriptures,  therefore,  luminous  with  their  own  self- 
evidencing  light,  present  the  truth  to  all  to  whom  they  come,  and 
demand  its  instant  reception  upon  the  testimony  of  God.  If  that 
evidence  is  not  felt  to  be  conclusive  by  any  one,  it  must  be  be- 
cause of  the  sinful  blindness  of  his  mind.  Therefore  Christ  says, 
"  ye  loill  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  may  have  life."  And  unbe- 
lief is  uniformly  charged  to  the  "  evil  heart." 


358  FAITH. 

11.  What  are  the  ultimate  grounds  of  that  assent  to  the  truth 
which  is  of  the  essence  of  faith  ? 

In  general,  the  ultimate  ground  upon  which  our  assent  to  the 
truth  of  any  object  of  knowledge  rests  is  the  veracity  of  God. 
The  testimony  of  our  senses,  the  integrity  of  our  consciences,  the 
intuitions  of  our  reasons,  all  rest  upon  his  veracity  as  Creator. 
Practically  the  mind  is  moved  to  this  assent  through  our  univer- 
sal and  instinctive  confidence  in  the  constitution  of  our  own 
natures. 

Kehgious  faith  rests,  Ist,  upon  the  faithfulness  of  God  as 
pledged  in  his  supernatural  revelation,  John  iii.,  33  ;  2d,  upon 
the  evidence  of  spiritual  illumination,  personal  experience  of 
the  power  of  the  truth,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
Sanctifier,  and  thus  "not  in  the  wisdom  of  man,  but  in  the  power 
of  God,"  1  Cor.  ii.,  5-12. 

12.  What  are  the  tivo  kinds  of  evidence  by  which  we  know 
that  God  has  revealed  certain  truths  as  objects  of  faith  ? 

Ist.  The  evidence  which  resides  in  the  trath  itself  Moral, 
spiritual,  experimental,  rational,  John  vi.,  63  ;  xiv.,  17,  26  ; 
Jer,  xxiii.,  29. 

2d.  The  accrediting  evidence  of  the  presence  and  power  of  God 
accompanying  the  promulgation  of  the  truth,  and  proving  that  it 
is  from  him.  These  are  miracles,  providential  disj)ensations,  the 
the  fulfillment  of  prophecy,  etc.,  John  v.,  36  ;  Heb.  ii.,  4. — See 
above,  Chapter  III. 

13.  How  can  it  be  shoivn  that  the  authority  of  the  church  is 
not  a  ground  of  faith  f 

See  above.  Chapter  V.,  question  18. 

14.  What  is  the  nature  of  historical  faith,  and  upon  what 
evidence  does  it  rest  ? 

That  mode  of  purely  rational  faith  called  historical  is  that 
apprehension  of  and  assent  to  the  truth  which  regards  it  in  its 
purely  rational  aspects  as  mere  facts  of  history,  or  as  mere  parts 
of  a  logical  system  of  opinion.  Its  appropriate  evidence  is  purely 
rational,  e.  g.,  the  solution  afforded  by  the  Scriptures  of  the 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  359 

facts  of  history  and  experience,  and  the  evidence  of  history, 
prophecy,  miracles,  etc. 

15.  What  is  the  nature  of  temporary  faith,  and  of  the  evidence 
upon  which  it  is  founded  ? 

Temjjorary  faith  is  that  state  of  mind  often  experienced  in  this 
world  by  impenitent  hearers  of  the  gospel  induced  by  the  moral 
evidence  of  the  truth,  the  common  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  the  power  of  religious  sympathy.  Sometimes  the  excited 
imagination  joyfully  appropriates  the  promises  of  the  gospel. 
Matt,  xiii.,  20.  Sometimes,  like  Felix,  the  man  believes  and 
trembles.  Oftentimes  it  is  at  first  impossible  to  distinguish  this 
state  of  mind  from  genuine  saving  faith.  But  not  springing  from 
a  divine  work  of  recreation  it  has  no  root  in  the  permanent  prin- 
ciples of  the  heart.  It  is  always,  therefore,  1st,  inefiicient, 
neither  purifying  the  heart  nor  overcoming  the  world  ;  2d, 
temporary. 

16.  What  is  the  specific  evidence  upon  which  saving  faith  is 
founded  '^ 

This  is  the  light  let  into  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his 
work  of  spiritual  illumination.  Thus  is  the  beauty,  and  excel- 
lence, and  the  suitableness  of  the  truth  to  the  practical  wants  of 
the  subject  apprehended.  With  this  the  witness  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  with  and  by  the  truth  cooperates,  1  Cor.  ii.,  4,  5  ;  Rom. 
viii.,  16  ;  2  Cor.  iv.,  6  ;  Eph.  ii.,  8. 

17.  How  may  it  be  proved  from  Scripture  and  experience  that 
spiritual  illumination  is  the  ground  of  saving  faith  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures,  wherever  they  come,  make  a  demand  un- 
conditional, immediate,  and  universal  upon  the  most  intelligent 
and  the  most  ignorant  alike,  that  they  should  be  received  and 
believed,  and  unbelief  is  always  charged  as  sin,  and  not  as  mere 
ignorance  or  mental  incapacity.  The  faith  which  they  demand 
must,  therefore,  be  a  moral  act,  and  must  depend  U230n  the  spirit- 
ual congeniality  of  the  believer  with  the  truth. 

2d.  By  nature  men  are  spiritually  blind,  and  subjects  of  aa 
"evil  heart  of  unbelief,"  2  Cor.  iii.,  14;  iv.,  4. 

3d.  Believers  arc  said  to  be  enlightened,  and  to  discern  the 


360  FAITH. 

things  of  the  Sphit,  Acts  xiii.,  48  ;  2  Cor.  iv.,  6  ;  Eph.  i.,  17, 18 ; 
1  John  ii.,  20,  27  ;  v.,  9,  10. 

4th.  Men  believe  because  they  are  taught  of  God,  John  vi., 
44,45. 

5th.  Every  Cliristian  is  conscious  of  beheving,  because  he 
sees  the  truth  believed  to  be  true,  lovely,  powerful,  and  satisiy- 
ing. 

Gth.  This  is  proved  by  the  effects  of  faith.  "  We  are  said  to 
live  by  faith,  to  be  sanctified  by  faith,  to  overcome  by  faith,  to 
be  saved  by  faith.  Blind  consent  to  authority,  or  rational  con- 
viction, produce  no  such  effects  ;  if  the  effects  are  spiritual,  the 
source  must  be  also  spiritual." 

18.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  relation  between 
faith  and  trust  ? 

In  consequence  of  their  doctrine  of  implicit  faith,  that  nothing 
is  required  beyond  blind  assent  to  the  teachings  of  the  church, 
Komanists  necessarily  deny  that  trust  enters  into  the  essence  of 
saving  faith. 

The  Sandemanians,  as  the  Campbellites,  holding  that  faith 
is  a  mere  affirmative  judgment  of  the  understanding  passed  upon 
the  truth  on  the  ground  of  evidence,  also  deny  that  trust  is  an 
element  of  saving  faith. 

Some  orthodox  theologians  have  held  that  trust  is  rather  to 
be  regarded  as  an  immediate  and  invariable  consequent  of  saving 
faith,  than  an  element  of  that  faith  itself 

Religious  faith,  resulting  from  spiritual  illumination,  re- 
spects the  entire  word  of  God  and  his  testimony,  and,  as  such, 
is  a  complex  state  of  mind,  varying  with  the  nature  of  the  par- 
ticular portion  of  revealed  truth  regarded  in  any  particular  act. 
Many  of  the  propositions  of  Scripture  are  not  the  proper  objects 
of  trust,  and  then  the  faith  which  embraces  them  is  only  a  rever- 
ent and  complacent  assent  to  them  as  true  and  good.  But  the 
specific  act  of  saving  faith  which  unites  to  Christ,  and  is  the  com- 
mencement, root  and  organ  of  our  whole  spiritual  life,  terminates 
upon  Christ's  person  and  work  as  mediator,  as  presented  in  the 
offers  and  promises  of  the  gospel.  This  assuredly  includes  trust 
in  its  very  essence,  and  this  is  called  "  saving  faith"  by  way  of 
■eminence,  since  it  is  the  faith  that  saves,  and  since  only  through 


APPLICATION   OF   EEDEMPTION.  361 

this  as  their  principle,  are  any  other  more  general  exercises  of 
saving  faith  j)ossible. 

19.  Hoio  may  the  fact  tJiat  saving  faith  includes  ti^ust  he 
proved  from  the  language  of  Scripture  ? 

The  uniform  and  single  condition  of  salvation  presented  in  the 
Scriptm-es  is  expressed  in  the  words  believe  in  or  on  Christ,  elg 
or  t-TTi  Tov  xQtarbvj  John  vii.,  38  ;  Acts  ix.,  42  ;  xvi.,  31  ;  Gal.  ii., 
16.  To  believe  in  or  on  a  person  necessarily  implies  trust  as  well 
as  credit. 

The  same  is  abundantly  proved  by  the  usage  with  respect  to 
the  phrases  "  by  faith  in  or  on  Christ,"  2  Tim.  iii.,  15  ;  Acts 
xxvi.,  18  ;  Gal.  iii.,  26  ;  Heb.  xi.,  1.  Faith  is  the  substance  of 
things  hoped  for,  but  the  foundation  of  hope  is  trust. 

20.  How  may  the  same  be  proved  from,  those  expressions 
tvhich  arc  used  in  Scripture  as  equivalent  to  the  phrase  "  be- 
lieving in  Christ  '^" 

"  Keceiving  Christ,"  John  i.,  12  ;  Col.  ii.,  6.  "  Looking  to 
Christ,"  Is.  xlv.,  22  ;  compare  Num.  xxi.,  9,  with  John  iii.,  14,  15. 
"Flying  to  Christ  for  refuge,"  Heb.  vi.,  18.  "Coming  to  Christ," 
John  vi.,  35  ;  Matt,  xi.,  28.  "  Committing,"  2  Tim.  i.,  12.  AU 
these  illustrate  as  well  as  designate  the  act  of  saving  feith,  and 
all  equally  imply  trust  as  an  essential  element,  for  we  can  "  re- 
ceive," or  "  come  to,"  or  "  look  to"  Christ  only  in  that  charac- 
ter of  a  propitiation,  an  advocate  and  a  deliverer,  in  which  he 
offers  himself  to  us. 

21.  How  may  the  same  be  proved  from  the  effects  which  the 
Scriptures  ascribe  to  faith  ? 

The  Scriptures  declare  that  by  faith  the  Christian  "  embraces 
the  promises,"  "  is  persuaded  of  the  promises,"  "  out  of  weakness 
is  made  strong,"  "waxes  valiant  in  fight,"  "confesses  himself  a 
stranger  and  pilgrim  seeking  a  better  country."  As  faith  in  a 
threatening  necessarily  involves  fear,  so  faith  in  a  promise  neces- 
sarily involves  trust. 

Besides,  faith  rests  upon  the  trustworthiness  of  God,  and 
therefore  necessarily  involves  trust,  Heb.  x.,  23,  and  the  whole  of 
the  11th  chapter. 


362  FAITH. 

22.  How  may  it  he  shown  that  this  view  of  faith  does  not 
confound  faith  and  hope  ? 

To  our  doctrine  that  saving  faith  involves  trust,  the  Romanist 
objects  that  this  confounds  feith  and  hope,  which  the  Scriptures 
distinguish  (1  Cor.  xiii.,  13),  since  hope  is  only  strong  trust.  But 
hope  is  not  merely  strong  trust.  Trust  rests  upon  the  grounds 
of  assurance,  while  hope  reaches  forward  to  the  ohject  of  which 
assurance  is  given.  Trust  is  the  foundation  of  hope.  Hope  is 
the  fruit  of  trust.  The  more  confiding  the  trust,  the  more  assured 
the  hope. 

23.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  relation  between 
faith  and  love  ? 

1st.  The  Romanists,  in  order  to  maintain  their  doctrine  that 
faith  alone  is  not  saving,  distinguish  between  a  formed,  or  perfect, 
and  an  unformed  faith.  They  acknowledge  that  faith  is  distinct 
from  love,  but  maintain  that  love  is  essential  to  render  faith  meri- 
torious and  effectual  as  the  instrument  of  our  salvation. 

2d,  Some  have  regarded  love  as  the  root  out  of  which  faith 
springs, 

3d.  The  true  view  is  that  love  is  the  immediate  and  necessary 
effect  of  faith.  Faith  includes  the  spiritual  apprehension  of  the 
beauty  and  excellence  of  the  truth,  and  an  act  of  the  will  embrac- 
ing it  and  relying  upon  it.  Yet  these  graces  can  not  be  analyti- 
cally separated,  since  they  mutually  involve  one  another.  There 
can  be  no  love  without  faith,  nor  any  faith  without  love.  Faith 
apprehends  the  loveliness  of  the  object,  the  heart  spontaneously 
loves  it.  Thus  "  faith  works  by  love,"  since  these  affections  are 
the  source  of  those  motives  that  control  the  will. 

The  Romish  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  essential  prin- 
ciples of  the  gospel.  Faith  is  not  a  work,  nor  can  it  have,  when 
formed  or  unformed,  any  merit,  it  is  essentially  a  self-emptying 
act,  which  saves  by  laying  hold  of  the  merits  of  Christ.  It  leads 
to  works,  and  proves  itself  by  its  fruits,  but  in  its  relation  to  jus- 
tification it  is  in  its  very  nature  a  strong  protest  against  the 
merits  of  all  human  works.  Gal.  iii.,  10,  11  ;  Eph.  ii.,  8,  9. 

The  Protestant  doctrine  that  love  is  the  fruit  of  faith  is  estab- 
lished by  what  the  Scriptures  declare  concerning  foith,  that  it 
"  sanctifies,"    "  works  by  love,"  "  overcomes  the  world,"  Gal.  v., 


APPLICATION   OF    REDEMPTION,  363 

6  ;  Acts  xxvi.,  18  ;  1  John  v.,  4.  This  is  accomplished  thus — 
by  faith  we  are  united  to  Christ,  Eph,  iii.,  17,  and  so  become 
partakers  of  his  Spirit,  1  John  iii.,  24,  one  of  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit  is  love,  Gal.  v.,  22,  and  love  is  the  principle  of  all  obe- 
dience, Eom.  xiii.,  10. 

24.  What  is  the  ol^ect  of  saving  faith  .? 

The  spiritual  illumination  of  the  understanding  and  renewal 
of  the  affections,  which  lays  the  foundation  for  the  souls  acting 
faith  in  any  one  portion  of  the  testimony  of  God,  lays  the  foun- 
dation for  its  acting  faith  in  all  that  testimony.  The  whole  re- 
vealed word  of  God,  then,  as  far  as  known  to  the  individual,  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  traditions,  doctrines  of  men,  and  j)retended 
private  revelations,  is  the  object  of  saving  faith.  That  particular 
act  of  faith,  however,  which  unites  to  Christ,  called,  by  way  of 
distinction,  justifying  faith,  has  for  its  object  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ  as  Mediator,  John  vii.,  38  ;  Acts  xvi.,  31. 

25.  What  is  meant  hy  an  ai^ticle  of  faith  as  distinguished 
from  a  matter  of  opinion  '^ 

The  Romanists  hold  that  every  dogma  decided  by  the  church 
to  be  true,  whether  derived  from  Scripture  or  tradition,  is,  upon 
pain  of  damnation,  to  be  believed  by  every  Christian  as  an  article 
of  faith,  if  known  to  him  by  an  explicit,  if  not  known  by  an  im- 
plicit faith.  On  the  other  hand,  with  respect  to  all  subjects  not 
decided  by  the  church,  every  man  is  left  free  to  believe  or  not  as 
a  matter  of  opinion. 

26.  What  is  the  Anglican  or  Puscyite  c7'iterio7i  for  distin- 
guishing those  doctrines  lohich  must  be  known  and  believed  in 
order  to  scdvation  ? 

They  agi'ce  with  the  Romanists  (see  above,  question  6)  that 
knowledge  is  not  essential  to  faith.  As  to  the  rule  of  faith,  how- 
ever, they  differ.  The  Romanist  makes  that  rule  the  teaching  of 
the  Papal  church.  The  Puseyites,  on  the  other  hand,  make  it 
the  uniform  testimony  of  tradition  running  in  the  line  of  the  suc- 
cession of  apostolic  bishops. 

27.  What  is  the  common  Protestant  doctrine  as  tofundamen- 


364  FAITH. 

tals  in  religion,  and  by  what  evidence  can  such  fundamentals  be 
ascertained  ? 

Every  doctrine  taught  in  the  Bible  is  the  object  of  an  enlight- 
ened spiritual  faith.  No  revealed  principle,  however  compara- 
tively subordinate,  can  be  regarded  as  indifferent,  nor  may  be 
adopted  or  rejected  at  will.  Every  man  is  bound  to  credit  the 
whole  testimony  of  God.  Yet  the  gospel  is  a  logically  consistent 
system  of  truth,  some  of  whose  principles  are  essential  to  its  in- 
tegrity, while  others  are  essential  only  to  its  symmetry  and  perfec- 
tion, and  ignorance,  feebleness  of  logical  comprehension  and  preju- 
dice may,  and  constantly  do,  lead  good  men  to  apprehend  this 
system  of  truth  imperfectly. 

A  fundamental  doctrine,  then,  is  either  one  which  every  soul 
must  apprehend  more  or  less  clearly  in  order  to  be  saved,  or  one 
which,  when  known,  is  so  clearly  involved  with  those  the  knowl- 
edtre  and  belief  of  which  is  essential  to  salvation,  that  the  one 
can  not  be  rejected  while  the  other  is  really  believed. 

A  fundamental  doctrine  is  ascertained — 

1st.  In  the  same  way  that  the  essential  principles  of  any 
other  system  are  determined  by  their  bearing  upon  the  system  as 
a  whole. 

2d.  Every  fundamental  doctrine  is  clearly  revealed. 

3d.  These  doctrines  are  in  Scripture  itself  declared  to  be  essen- 
tial, John  iii.,  18  ;  Acts  xvi.,  31 ;  2  Cor.  v.,  17  ;  Gal.  ii.  21  ;  1 
John  i.,  8. 

28.  What  is  the  object  of  that  specif  c  act  of  faith  whereby  we 
are  justified  f 

The  person  and  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  Mediator. 

This  is  proved — 

1st.  The  Scriptures  expressly  declare  that  we  are  justified  by 
that  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object,  Kom.  iii.,  22,  25  ;  Gal. 
ii.,  16  ;  Phil,  iii.,  9. 

2d.  We  are  said  to  be  saved  by  faith  in  Christ,  John  iii.,  16, 
36  ;  Acts  X.,  43  ;  xvi.,  31. 

3d.  Justifying  faith  is  designated  as  a  "  looking  to  Christ,"  a 
"  coming  to  Christ,"  etc.,  John  i.,  12  ;  vi.,  35,  37  ;  Isa.  xlv.,  22. 

4th.  Rejection  of  Christ ;  a  refusal  to  submit  to  the  righteous- 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  365 

ness  of  God  is  declared  to  be  the  ground  of  reprobation,  Jolin 
viii.,  24  ;  iii.,  18,  19. 

29.  noiv  is  the  Romish  doctrine  on  this  point  opposed  to  the 
Protestant  f 

The  Komanists,  confounding  justification  and  sanctification, 
hold  that  faith  justifies  through  the  sanctifying  power  of  the 
truth.  As  all  revealed  truth  has  this  sanctifying  virtue,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  whole  revelation  of  God  as  ascertained  by  the  de- 
cisions of  the  church,  is  the  object  of  justifying  faith.  This  is 
refuted  by  all  we  have  established  from  Scripture  concerning  jus- 
tification, sanctification,  and  faith. 

30.  Is  Christ  in  all  his  offices ,  or  only  as  priest,  the  immedi- 
ate object  of  justifying  faith  f 

In  this  act  the  believer  appropriates  and  rests  upon  Christ  as 
Mediator,  which  includes  at  once  all  his  functions  as  such.  These 
may  be  analytically  distinguished,  but  in  fact  they  are  always  in- 
separably united  in  him.  When  he  acts  as  prophet  he  teaches 
as  king  and  priest.  When  he  reigns  he  sits  as  prophet  and  priest 
upon  his  throne.  Besides  this,  his  prophetical  and  kingly  work 
are  consciously  needed  by  the  awakened  soul,  and  are  necessarily 
apprehended  as  inseparable  from  his  priestly  work  in  the  one  act 
of  faith. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  as  the  substitutionary  work  which 
Christ  accomplished  as  priest  is  the  meritorious  ground  of  our 
salvation,  so  his  priestly  character  is  made  the  more  prominent, 
both  in  the  teachings  of  Scripture  and  in  the  experience  of  his 
people. 

31.  Hoio  far  is  peace  of  conscience  and  peace  with  God  a 
necessary  consequence  of  faith  ? 

Peace  with  God  is  reconciliation  with  him.  Peace  of  con- 
science may  either  mean  consciousness  of  that  reconciliation,  or 
the  appeasement  of  our  own  consciences  which  condenm  us. 
Faith  in  eveiy  instance  secures  our  peace  with  God,  since  it  unites 
us  to  Christ,  Kom.  v.,  1  ;  and  in  the  proportion  in  which  ftiith  in 
the  merits  of  Christ  is  clear  and  constant  will  be  our  consciousness 


366  FAITH. 

of  reconciliation  with  God,  and  the  satisfaction  of  our  own  moral 
sense  that  righteousness  is  fulfilled,  while  we  are  forgiven.  Yet 
as  faith  may  be  obscured  by  sin,  so  the  true  believer  may  tempo- 
rarily fall  under  his  Father's  displeasure,  and  lose  his  sense  of 
forgiveness  and  his  moral  satisfaction  in  the  perfection  of  the 
atonement. 

32.  What  are  the  three  views  entertained  as  to  the  relation 
between  faith  and  assurance  ? 

1st.  The  Reformers  generally  maintained  that  justifying  faith 
consisted  in  appropriating  the  promise  of  salvation  through 
Christ  made  in  the  gospel,  i.  e.,  in  regarding  God  as  propitious 
to  us  for  Christ's  sake.  Thus  the  very  act  of  faith  involves 
assurance. 

2d.  Some  have  held  that  assurance  in  this  life  is  unattainable. 

3d.  The  true  view  is  that  "although  this  infallible  assurance 
does  not  belong  to  the  essence  of  faith,  but  that  a  true  believer 
may  wait  long  and  conflict  with  many  difficulties  before  he  par- 
take of  it,  yet  being  enabled  by  the  Spirit  to  know  the  things 
which  are  freely  given  him  by  God,  he  may,  without  extraordi- 
nary revelation,  in  the  right  use  of  ordinary  means  attain  there- 
unto. And,  therefore,  it  is  the  duty  of  each  one  to  give  diligence 
to  make  his  calling  and  election  sure."  It  is  agreed  by  all  that  a 
true  faith  can  not  admit  of  any  doubt  as  to  its  object.  What  is 
believed  is  assuredly  believed.  But  the  object  of  saving  faith  is 
Christ  and  his  work  as  Mediator  guaranteed  to  us  in  the  promises 
of  the  gospel  on  the  condition  of  faith.  True  faith  does,  there- 
fore, essentially  include  the  assurance,  1st,  that  Christ  is  able  to 
save  us.  2d.  That  he  is  faithful  and  will  save  us  if  ive  believe. 
It  is  meant  that  this  is  of  the  essence  of  faith,  not  that  every  true 
believer  always  enjoys  a  state  of  mind  which  excludes  all  doubt 
as  to  Christ's  power  or  love  ;  because  the  spiritual  illumination 
upon  which  faith  rests  is  often  imperfect  in  degree  and  variable 
in  exercise.  Faith  may  be  weak,  or  it  may  be  limited  by  doubt, 
or  it  may  alternate  with  doubt.  Yet  all  such  doubt  is  of  sin,  and 
is  alien  to  the  essential  nature  of  faith.  But  the  condition,  if  we 
believe,  upon  which  all  assurance  of  our  own  salvation  is  sus- 
pended, is  a  matter  not  of  revelation,  but  of  experience,  not  of 
faith,  but  of  consciousness. 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  367 

Theologians  have,  therefore,  made  a  distinction  between  the 
assurance  of  faith,  Heb.  x.,  22,  and  the  assurance  of  liope,  Heb. 
vi.  11.  The  first  is  of  the  essence  of  saving  faith,  and  is  the  as- 
surance that  Christ  is  all  that  he  professes  to  be,  and  will  do  all 
that  he  promises.  The  second  is  the  assurance  of  our  own  per- 
sonal salvation,  is  a  fniit  of  faith,  and  one  of  the  higher  attain- 
ments of  the  Christian  life. 

33.  How  may  it  he  proved  that  assurance  of  our  own  personal 
salvation  is  not  essential  to  saving  faith  ? 

1st.  From  the  true  object  of  saving  faith  as  given  above.  2d. 
From  the  examples  given  in  the  Scriptures  of  eminent  saints  who 
doubted  with  regard  to  themselves,  1  Cor.  ix.,  27.  3d.  From  the 
exhortations  addressed  to  those  who  were  already  believers  to  at- 
tain to  assurance  as  a  degree  of  faith  beyond  that  which  they  al- 
ready enjoyed.  4th.  From  the  experience  of  God's  people  in  all 
ages, 

34.  How  may  it  he  proved  that  assurance  is  attainahle  in  this 
life  ? 

1st.  This  is  directly  asserted,  Rom.  viii.,  16  ;  2  Pet.  i.,  10  ; 
1  John  ii.,  3  ;  iii.,  14  ;  v.,  13.  2d.  Scriptural  examples  are  given 
of  its  attainment,  2  Tim.  i.,  12  ;  iv.,  7,  8.  3d.  Many  eminent 
Christians  have  enjoyed  an  abiding  assurance,  of  the  genuineness 
of  which  then-  holy  walk  and  conversation  was  an  indubitable  seal. 

35.  On  what  grounds  may  a  man  he  assured  of  his  salvation  ? 

"  It  is  an  infallible  assurance  of  faith,  founded,  1st,  upon  the 
divine  truth  of  the  promises  of  salvation  ;  2d,  the  inward  evidence 
of  those  graces  unto  which  those  promises  are  made,  and,  3d,  the 
testimony  of  the  spirit  of  adoption,  Rom.  viii.,  15,  16,  witnessing 
with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.  Which  Spirit, 
Eph.  i.,  13,  14 ;  2  Cor.  i.,  21,  22,  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheri- 
tance wliereby  we  are  sealed  to  the  day  of  redemption." — Con.  of 
Faith,  Chap.  XVIII. 

This  genuine  assurance  may  be  distinguished  from  that  pre- 
sumptuous confidence  which  is  a  delusion  of  Satan,  chiefly  by 
these  marks.  True  assurance,  Ist,  begets  unfeigned  humility,  1 
Cor.  XV.,  10  ;  Gal.  vi.,  14  ;  2d,  leads  to  ever-increasing  diligence 


368  FAITH. 

in  practical  religion,  Ps.  li.,  12,  13,  19  ;  3d,  to  candid  self-exami- 
nation, and  a  desire  to  be  searched  and  con^ected  by  God,  Ps. 
cxxxix.,  23,  24 ;  4th,  to  constant  aspirations  after  nearer  con- 
formity, and  more  intimate  communion  with  God,  1  John  iii.,  2,  3. 

36.  Hoio  may  it  he  shown  that  a  living  faith  necessarily  leads 
to  good  loorks  ? 

1st.  From  the  nature  of  faith.  It  is  the  spiritual  apprehen- 
sion and  the  voluntary  embrace  of  the  whole  truth  of  God,  the 
promises,  the  commands,  the  threatenings  of  the  Scripture  viewed 
as  true  and  as  good.  This  faith  occasions,  of  course,  the  exercise 
of  the  renewed  affections,  and  love  acted  out  is  obedience.  Each 
separate  truth  thus  apprehended  produces  its  appropriate  effect 
upon  the  heart,  and  consequently  upon  the  life. 

2.  The  testimony  of  Scripture,  Acts  xv.,  9  ;  xxvi.,  18  ;  Gal. 
v.,  6  ;  James  ii.  18  ;  1  John  v.,  4. 

3.  The  experience  of  the  universal  church. 


CHAPTER    XXVIII. 

UNION     OF     BELIEVERS     WITH     CHRIST. 

1.  To  lohom  are  all  men  united  in  their  natural  estate  ? 

To  Adam.  Our  union  with  him  includes,  1st,  his  federal 
headship  under  the  covenant  of  works,  Rom.  v.,  12-19.  2d.  His 
natural  headship,  as  per  force  of  ordinary  generation,  the  source 
of  our  nature,  and  of  its  moral  corruptions.  Gen.  v.,  3  ;  1  Cor. 
XV.,  49. 

But  the  law  upon  which  rested  the  covenant  of  works,  wherehy 
we  were  held  in  union  with  Adam,  having  been  slain  by  Christ, 
"  that  being  dead  wherein  we  were  held,"  we  were  "  mamed  to 
another,"  that  is,  to  Christ,  Rom.  vii.,  1-4, 

2.  What  is  the  general  nature  of  our  union  with  Christ  ? 

It  is  a  single,  ineffable,  and  most  intimate  union,  presenting 
to  our  view  two  different  asjDCcts,  and  giving  rise  to  two  different 
classes  of  consequents. 

1st.  The  first  aspect  of  this  union  is  its  federal  and  represent- 
ative character,  whereby  Christ,  as  the  second  Adam,  (1  Cor.  xv., 
22,)  assumes  in  the  covenaHt  of  grace  those  broken  obligations  of 
the  covenant  of  works  which  the  first  Adam  failed  to  discharge, 
and  fulfills  them  all  in  behalf  of  all  his  "  sheep,"  "  they  whom  the 
Father  has  given  him."  The  consequences  which  arise  from  our 
union  with  Christ  under  this  aspect  of  it  are  such  as  the  imputa- 
tion of  our  sins  to  him,  and  of  his  righteousness  to  us,  and  all  of 
the  forensic  benefits  of  justification  and  adoption,  etc. — See 
Chaps.  XXX.,  XXXI. 

2d.  The  second  aspect  of  this  union  is  its  spiritual  and  vital 
character,  the  nature  and  consequences  of  which  it  is  our  business 
to  discuss  under  the  present  head. 

24 


370  UNION   WITH   CHRIST, 

3.  What  is  tlie  foundation  of  this  union  ? 

The  eternal  purpose  of  the  triune  God,  expressed  in  the  decree 
of  election  (we  were  chosen  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  Eph.  i.,  4),  providing  for  its  own  fulfilment  in  the  covenant 
of  grace  between  the  Father  as  God  absolute,  and  the  Son  as  Me- 
diator, John  xvii,,  2-6  ;  Gal.  ii.,  20 ;  in  the  incarnation  of  the 
Son,  whereby  he  assumed  fellowship  with  us  in  community  of 
nature,  and  became  our  brother,  Heb.  ii.,  16,  17 ;  and  in  the 
mission  and  official  work  of  the  Sj)irit  of  Christ  (1  John  iv,,  13), 
through  the  powerful  operation  of  whom  in  the  bodies  and  souls 
of  his  people  the  last  Adam  is  made  a  quickening  spirit  (1  Cor. 
XV.,  45),  and  they  are  all  constituted  the  body  of  Christ  and 
members  in  particular,  1  Cor.  xii.,  27. 

4.  By  what  analogies  drawn  from  earthly  relations  is  this 
union  of  believers  with  Christ  illustrated  in  Scripture  ? 

The  technical  designation  of  this  union  in  theological  lan- 
guage is  "mystical,"  because  it  so  far  transcends  all  the  analogies 
of  earthly  relationships,  in  the  intimacy  of  its  communion,  in 
the  transforming  power  of  its  influence,  and  in  the  excellence 
of  its  consequences.  Yet  Holy  Scripture  illustrates  different 
aspects  of  this  fountain  of  graces  by  many  apt  though  partial 
analogies. 

As,  1st,  foundation  of  a  building  and  its  superstructure,  1 
Pet.  ii.,  4,  6.  2d,  Tree  and  its  branches,  John  xv.,  5.  3d.  Head 
and  members  of  the  body,  Eph.  iv.,  15,  16.  4th.  Husband  and 
wife,  Eph.  v.,  31,  32  ;  Eev.  xix.,  7-9.  5th.  Adam  and  his  de- 
scendants, in  both  their  federal  and  natural  relations,  Rom.  v., 
12-19  ;  1  Cor.  xv.,  21-49 

5.  What  is  the  essential  nature  of  this  union  ? 

On  the  one  hand,  this  union  does  not  involve  any  mysterious 
confusion  of  the  person  of  Christ  with  the  persons  of  his  peoj^le  ; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  such  a  mere  association  of  sej^a- 
rate  persons  as  exists  in  human  societies.  But  it  is  a  union 
which,  Ist,  determines  our  legal  status  on  the  same  basis  with 
his.     2d.  Which  revives  and  sustains,  by  the  influence  of  his  in- 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  371 

dwelling  Spirit,  our  spiritual  life,  from  the  fountain  of  his  life, 
and  which  transforms  our  bodies  and  souls  into  the  likeness  of  his 
glorified  humanity. 

It  is,  therefore — 

1st.  A  spiritual  union.  Its  actuating  source  and  bond  is  the 
Spirit  of  the  head,  who  dwells  and  works  in  the  members,  1  Cor. 
vi.,  17  ;  xii.,  13  ;  1  John  iii,,  24  ;  iv.,  13. 

2d.  A  vital  union,  i.  e.,  our  spiritual  life  is  sustained 
and  determined  in  its  nature  and  movement  by  the  life  of 
Christ,  through  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit,  John  xiv.,  19  ; 
Gal.  ii.,  20. 

3d.  It  embraces  our  entire  persons,  our  bodies  through  our 
spirits,  1  Cor.  vi.,  15,  19. 

4th.  It  is  a  legal  or  federal  union,  so  that  all  of  our  legal  or 
covenant  responsibilities  rest  upon  Christ,  and  all  of  his  legal  or 
covenant  merits  accrue  to  us. 

5th.  It  is  an  indisoluble  union,  John  x.,  28  ;  Eom.  viii.,  35, 
37  ;  1  Thes.  iv.,  14,  17. 

6th.  This  union  is  between  the  believer  and  the  person  of  the 
God-man  in  his  office  as  Mediator.  Its  immediate  organ  is  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who  dwells  in  us,  and  through  him  we  are  virtually 
united  to  and  commune  with  the  whole  Godhead,  since  he  is  the 
Spirit  of  the  Father  as  well  as  of  the  Son,  John  xiv.,  23  ;  xvii., 
21,  23. 

6.  Hoio  is  this  union  between  Christ  and  the  Christian  estab- 
lished ? 

It  was  established  in  the  purpose  and  decree  of  God,  and  in 
the  covenant  of  the  Father  with  the  Son  from  eternity,  Eph.  i., 
4  ;  John  xvii.,  2,  6.  Nevertheless,  the  elect,  as  to  personal  char- 
acter and  present  relations,  before  their  effectual  calling  by  the 
Spirit,  are  born  and  continued  "  by  nature  children  of  wrath  even 
as  others,"  and  "  strangers  to  the  covenants  of  promise,"  Eph.  ii., 
3,  12.  In  God's  appointed  time  with  each  individual  of  his 
chosen,  this  union  is  established  mutually,  1st.  By  the  com- 
mencement of  the  effectual  and  permanent  workings  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  within  them,  (they  are  quickened  together  with  Christ)  ; 
in  the  act  of  the  new  birth  opening  the  eyes  and  renewing 
the  will,  and  thus  laying  in  their  natures  the  foundation  of 


372  UNION   WITH   CHRIST. 

the  exercise  of  saving  faith.  2cl.  Which  faith  is  the  second 
bond  by  which  this  mutual  union  is  established,  by  the  con- 
tinued actings  of  which  their  fellowshii)  with  Christ  is  sustained, 
and  its  blessed  consequences  developed,  Eph.  iii.,  17.  Thus  we 
"  come  to  him,"  "  receive  him,"  "  eat  of  his  flesh  and  drink  of 
his  blood,"  etc. 

7.   What  are  the  consequences  of  this  union  to  the  believer  ? 

1st.  They  have  a  community  with  him  in  his  covenant  stand- 
ing, and  rights.  Forensically  they  are  rendered  "  complete  in 
him."  His  righteousness  and  his  Father  is  theirs.  They  receive 
the  adoption  in  him,  and  are  accepted  as  to  both  their  persons  and 
services  in  the  beloved.  They  are  sealed  by  his  Holy  Spirit  of 
promise  ;  in  him  obtain  an  inheritance  ;  sit  with  him  on  his 
throne  and  behold  his  glory,  Kom.  viii.,  1  ;  Col.  ii.,  10  ;  Eph.  i., 
6,  11,  13  ;  Phil,  iii.,  8,  9. 

As  Mediator,  Jesus  is  "the  Christ"  anointed  one,  and  the 
believer  is  the  Christian  or  receiver  of  "the  unction,"  Actsxi.,  26; 
1  John  ii.,  20.  His  mediatorial  office  embraces  three  principal 
functions,  (1.)  That  of  prophet,  and  in  fellowship  with  him  the 
believer  is  a  prophet,  John  xvi.,  13  ;  1  John  ii.,  27.  (2.)  That 
of  priest,  and  the  believer  also  is  a  priest  in  him,  Isa.  Ixi.  6  ;  1 
Pet.  ii.,  5  ;  Rev.  xx.,  6.  (3.)  That  of  king,  and  in  him  the  be- 
liever is  a  king,  1  Pet.  ii.,  9  ;  Rev.  iii.,  21  ;"  v.,  10. 

2d.  They  have  fellowship  with  him  in  the  transforming,  as- 
similating power  of  his  life,  making  them  like  him  ;  every  grace 
of  Jesus  reproducing  itself  in  them  ;  "  of  his  fulness  we  have  all 
received,  and  grace  for  gi-ace."  This  holds  true,  (1.)  with  regard 
to  our  souls,  Rom.  viii.,  9  ;  Phil,  ii.,  5  ;  1  John  iii.,  2  ;  (2.)  with 
regard  to  our  bodies,  causing  them  to  be  now  the  temples  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  1  Cor.  vi.,  17,  19  ;  and  his  res-m-rection  to  be 
the  cause  of  ours,  and  his  glorified  body  to  be  the  type  of 
ours,  Rom.  vi.,  5  ;  1  Cor.  xv.,  47,  49  ;  Phil,  iii.,  21.  And  thus 
believers  arc  made  to  bear  fruit  in  Christ,  both  in  their  bodies 
and  spirits,  which  are  his,  John  xv.,  5  ;  2  Cor.  xii.,  9  ;  1 
John  i.,  6. 

3d.  This  leads  to  their  fellowship  with  Christ  in  their  ex- 
perience, in  their  labors,  suflferings,  temptations,  and  death,  Gal. 


APPLICATION   OF   EEDEMPTION.  373 

vi.,  17  ;  Phil,  iii.,  10  ;  Heb.  xii.,  3  ;  1  Pet.  iv.,  13.  Thus  ren- 
dering sacred  and  glorious  even  our  earthly  life. 

4th.  Also  to  Christ's  rightful  fellowship  with  them  in 
all  they  possess,  Prov,  xix.,  17  ;  Kom.  xiv.,  8  ;  1  Cor.,  vi., 
19,  20. 

5th.  Also  to  the  consequence  that,  in  the  spiritual  reception 
of  the  holy  sacraments,  they  do  really  hold  fellowship  with  him. 
They  are  "baptized  into  Christ,"  Gal.  iii.,  27.  "The  bread 
which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ ; 
the  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion 
of  the  blood  of  Christ,"  1  Cor.  x.,  16  ;  xi.,  26  ;  John  vi., 
51-56. 

6th.  This  leads  also  to  the  fellowship  of  believers  with  one 
another  through  him,  that  is,  to  the  communion  of  saints. 

8.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  "  communion  of  saints"  which 
springs  from  the  union  of  each  saint  ivith  the  Lord  ? 

See  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  XXVI.  Believers  being 
all  united  to  one  head  are,  of  course,  through  him  mutually  re- 
lated in  the  same  community  of  spirit,  life,  status,  and  cove- 
nanted privileges  with  one  another. 

This  involves  upon  the  part  of  all  believers — 

1st.  Keciprocal  obligations  and  offices  according  to  the  special 
grace  vouchsafed  to  each.  Like  the  several  organs  of  the  body 
all  have  part  in  the  same  general  life,  yet  each  has  his  own  indi- 
vidual difference  of  qualification,  and  consequently  of  duty  ;  "for 
the  body  is  not  one  member  but  many,"  1  Cor.  xii.,  4-21  ;  Eph. 
iv.,  11-13. 

2d.  They  have  fellowship  in  each  others  gifts  and  complemen- 
taiy  graces,  each  contributing  his  special  loveliness  to  the  beauty 
of  the  whole,  Eph.  iv.,  15,  16. 

3d.  These  reciprocal  duties  have  respect  to  the  bodies  and 
temporal  interests  of  the  brethren  as  well  as  to  those  which  con- 
cern the  soul.  Gal.  ii.,  10  ;  1  John  iii.,  16-18. 

4th.  They  have  fellowship  in  faith  and  doctrine.  Acts.  ii.,.  42  ; 
Gal.  ii.,  9. 

5th.  In  mutual  respect  and  subordination,  Rom.  xii.,  10;  Eph. 
v.,  21  ;  Heb.  xiii.,  17. 


374  UNION   WITH   CHRIST. 

6th.  In  mutual  love  and  sympathy,  Rom.  xii.,  10  ;  1  Cor. 
xii.,  26. 

7th.  This  fellowship  exists  unbroken  between  believers  on 
earth  and  in  heaven.  There  is  one  "whole  family  in  heaven  and 
on  earth,"  Eph.  iii.,  15. 

8th.  In  glory  this  communion  of  saints  shall  be  perfected, 
when  there  is  "one  fold  and  one  shepherd,"  when  all  saints  shall 
be  one  as  Father  and  Son  are  one,  John  x.,  16  ;  xvii.,  22. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

REPENTANCE. 

1.  What  are  the  words  used  in  the  original  to  exjpress  this 
change  of  mind  and  feeling  ? 

1st.  fiETa^eXeadat,  from  [xeXonai^  to  care  for  ;  combined  with 
iisTa,  to  change  ones  care.  This  is  used  only  five  times  in  the  New 
Testament. 

2d.  iieravouv,  from  voew,  to  perceive,  understand,  consider  ; 
combined  with  \iETd,  to  change  ones  mind  or  jourjMse.  This  is  the 
verb  constantly  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  this  change. 

3d.  From  the  same  source  comes  the  noun  fierdvoia,  repent- 
ance, change  of  mind  or  purpose.  In  the  New  Testament  usage 
of  these  words  the  idea  of  sorrow  and  contrition  is  included. 

2.  What  is  saving  repentance  ? 

See  Con.  Faith,  Chap.  XV.  Larger  Cat.,  Q.  76.  Shorter 
Cat.,  Q.87. 

It  includes,  1st,  a  sense  of  personal  guilt,  pollution  and  help- 
lessness. 2d.  An  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ. 
3d.  Grief  and  hatred  of  sin,  a  resolute  turning  from  it  unto  God, 
and  a  persistent  endeavor  after  a  new  life  of  holy  obedience. 

3.  Prove  that  repentance  is  a  grace  or  gift  of  God. 

1st.  This  is  evident  from  the  nature  of  repentance  itself  It 
includes  (1.)  sense  of  the  hatefulness  of  sin,  (2.)  sense  of  the 
beauty  of  holiness,  (3.)  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ. 
It,  therefore,  presupposes  faith,  which  is  God's  gift.  Gal.  v.,  22  ; 
Eph.  ii.,  8. 

2.  The  Scriptures  expressly  affirm  it,  Zech.  xii.,  10 ;  Acts  v., 
31 ;  xi.,  18  ;  2  Tim.  ii.,  25. 


376  REPENTANCE. 

4.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  sense  of  sin  which  is  an  essential 
element  of  repentance  ? 

That  spiritual  illumination  and  renewal  of  the  affections  which 
is  effected  in  regeneration,  brings  the  believer  to  see  and  appreci- 
ate the  holiness  of  God  as  revealed  alike  in  the  law  and  the  gospel, 
Rom.  iii.,  20  ;  Job  xlii.,  6,  and  in  that  light  to  see  and  feel  also  the 
exceeding  sinfulness  of  all  sin,  and  the  utter  sinfulness  of  his  own 
nature  just  as  it  is  in  truth.  This  sense  of  sin,  thus  correspond- 
ing to  the  facts  of  the  case,  includes,  1st,  consciousness  of  guilt, 
i.  e.,  exposure  to  righteous  punishment,  as  opposed  to  the  justice 
of  God,  Ps.  li.,  4,  9.  2d.  Consciousness  of  pollution  as  opposed  to 
the  holiness  of  God,  Ps.  li.,  5,  7,  10  ;  and,  3d,  consciousness  of 
helplessness,  Ps.  li.,  11 ;  cix.,  22.     See  Way  of  Life. 

5.  What  are  the  fruits  and  evidences  of  this  sense  of  sin  ? 

A  sense  of  guilt,  especially  when  coupled  with  a  sense  of  help- 
lessness, will  naturally  excite  apprehension  of  danger.  This  pain- 
ful feeling  is  experienced  in  infinitely  various  degrees  and  modifi- 
cations, as  determined  by  natural  temperament,  education,  and 
the  special  dealings  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  These  legal  fears,  how- 
ever, are  common  both  to  false  and  to  true  repentance,  and  possess 
no  sanctifying  influence. 

A  sense  of  pollution  leads  to  shame  when  we  think  of  God, 
and  to  self-loathing  when  we  think  of  ourselves. 

Confession  of  sin,  both  in  private  to  God  and  before  men,  is  a 
natural  and  indispensible  mode  in  which  this  sense  of  sin  will  give 
genuine  expression  to  itself,  Ps.  xxxii.,  5,  6  ;  Prov.  xxviii.,  13  ; 
James  v.,  16  ;  1  John  i.,  9. 

The  only  indubitable  test  of  the  genuineness  of  such  a  sense 
of  sin,  however,  is  an  earnest  and  abiding  desire  and  endeavor  to 
be  delivered  from  it. 

6.  Shoiv  that  an  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ 
is  essential  to  repentance. 

1st.  The  awakened  conscience  echoes  God's  law,  and  can  be 
appeased  by  no  less  a  propitiation  than  that  demanded  by  divine 
justice  itself,  and  until  this  is  realized  in  a  believing  application 
to  Christ,  either  indifference  must  stupify,  or  remorse  must  tor- 
ment the  soul. 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  377 

2d.  Out  of  Christ  God  is  a  consuming  fire,  and  an  inextin- 
guishable dread  drives  the  soul  away,  Deut.  iv.,  24  ;  Heb.  xii.,  29. 

3d.  A  sense  of  the  amazing  goodness  of  God  to  us  in  the  gift 
of  his  Son,  and  of  our  ungrateful  requital  of  it,  is  necessary  to  ex- 
cite in  the  repentant  soul  the  proper  shame  and  sorrow  fur  sin  as 
committed  against  God,  Ps.  li.,  4. 

4th.  This  is  proved  by  the  teachings  and  examples  furnished 
in  ScrijDture,  Ps.  li.,  1 ;  cxxx.,  4. 

7.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  "  turning  unto  Ood"  which 
constitutes  the  essence  of  genuine  repentance  ? 

It  is  a  voluntary  forsaking  of  sin  as  evil  and  hateful,  with  sin- 
cere sorrow,  humiliation,  and  confession  ;  and  a  returning  unto 
God,  because  he  has  a  right  to  us,  and  because  he  is  merciful  and 
willing  to  forgive,  together  with  a  determination  to  live,  by  the 
help  of  his  grace,  in  obedience  to  his  commandments. 

8.  What  are  the  evidences  of  genuine  repentance  ? 

1st.  The  agreement  of  our  own  internal  experience  with  the 
teachings  of  the  word  of  God  on  this  subject.  This  is  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  prayerful  study  of  the  Scriptures  in  connection 
with  self-examination.  2d.  The  permanent  effects  realized  in  the 
life.  These  are  the  hatred  and  forsaking  of  secret  as  well  as  of 
open  sins,  the  choice  of  God's  service  as  both  right  and  desirable, 
public  confession,  and  entire  practical  consecration.  "  These 
things  must  be  in  us  and  abound,"  2  Cor.  vii.,  11. 

9.  What  are  the  relations  which  the  ideas  represented  hy  the 
terms  ^' faith"  " repentance,"  " regeneration"  and  " conversion" 
mutually  sustain  to  one  another  ? 

Regeneration  is  the  ineffable  act  of  God  implanting  a  new  na- 
ture. The  term  conversion  is  used  generally  to  express  the  first 
exercises  of  that  new  nature  in  ceasing  from  the  old  life  and  com- 
mencing the  new.  Faith  designates  the  primary  act  of  the  new 
nature,  and  also  that  permanent  state  or  habit  of  mind  which  con- 
tinues the  essential  condition  of  all  other  graces.  It  is  the  spiritual 
apprehension  of  the  truth  by  the  mind,  and  the  loyal  embrace  of  the 
truth  by  the  will,  without  which  there  can  be  neither  love,  hope, 
peace,  joy,  nor  repentance.     The  common  f::ouso  attached  to  the 


378  REDEMPTION. 

word  7'€2Jentance  is  very  similar  to  that  attached  to  the  word  con- 
version, but  it  differs  from  it  as  to  its  usage  in  two  particulars. 
1st.  Conversion  is  the  more  general  term,  and  is  used  to  include 
the  first  exercises  of  faith,  as  well  as  all  those  experiences  of  love 
of  holiness  and  hatred  of  sin,  etc.,  which  are  consequent  upon  it. 
Repentance  is  more  specific,  and  expresses  that  hatred  and  renun- 
ciation of  sin,  and  that  turning  unto  God  which  accompanies 
faith  as  its  consequent.  2d.  Conversion  is  generally  used  to  desig- 
nate only  the  Jirst  actings  of  the  new  nature  at  the  commencement 
of  a  religious  life,  or  at  most  the  first  steps  of  a  return  to  God 
after  a  notable  backsliding,  Luke  xxii.,  32.  While  repentance  is 
applied  to  that  constant  bearing  of  the  cross  which  is  one  main 
characteristic  of  the  believer's  life  on  earth,  Ps.  xix.,  12, 13  ;  Luke 
ix.,  23  ;  Gal.,  vi.,  14 ;  v.,  24. 

10.  What  doctrine  concer?iing  repentance  was  taught  hy  many 
of  the  Reformers  ? 

Some  of  them  defined  repentance  as  consisting,  1st,  of  mortifi- 
cation, or  dying  unto  sin  ;  and,  2d,  of  vivification,  or  living  unto 
God.  This  corresponds  to  our  view  of  sanctification.  The  Lu- 
therans make  repentance  to  consist  in,  1st,  contrition,  or  sorrow 
for  sin  ;  and,  2d,  in  faith  in  the  gos2)el,  or  absolution. — Augsburg 
Conf ,  Art.  12.  This,  although  a  peculiar  phraseology,  is  the 
true  view. 

11.  What  in  general  terms  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  penance  ? 

They  distinguish  penance,  1st,  as  a  virtue,  equivalent  to  the 
Protestant  doctrine  of  the  grace  of  repentance.  2d.  As  a  sacra- 
ment. Penance,  as  a  virtue,  is  internal,  or  a  change  of  mind, 
including  sorrow  for  sin  and  turning  unto  God.  External  pen- 
ance, or  the  outward  exi^ression  of  the  internal  state,  is  that 
which  constitutes  the  sacrament  of  penance.  The  matter  of  this 
sacrament  is  constituted  by  the  acts  of  the  penitent  in  the  way 
of  contrition,  of  confession,  and  of  satisfaction.  Contrition  is  sor- 
row and  detestation  of  past  sins,  with  a  purpose  of  sinning  no 
more.  Confession  is  self-accusation  to  a  priest  having  jurisdic- 
tion and  the  power  of  the  keys.  Satisfaction  is  some  painful 
work  imposed  by  the  priest,  and  performed  by  the  jDcnitent  to 
satisfy  justice  for  sins  committed.     The  form  of  the  sacrament  is 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  379 

the  absolution  pronounced  judicially,  and  not  merely  declara- 
tively,  by  the  priest.  They  hold  "  that  it  is  only  by  means  of 
this  sacrament  that  sins  committed  after  baptism  can  be  for- 
given."—Cat.  Eom.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  V.,  Qu.  12  and  13. 

12.  Mow  may  it  he  proved  that  it  is  not  a  sacrament  ? 

1st.  It  was  not  instituted  by  Christ.  The  Scriptures  teaclu 
nothing  concerning  it.  2d.  It  is  an  essential  consequent  of  the 
false  theory  of  baptismal  regeneration.  3d.  It  does  not  either 
signify,  seal,  or  convey  the  benefits  of  Christ  and  the  new  cove- 
nant.— See  below,  Chap.  XXXVIII.,  questions  2-5. 

13.  What  is  their  doctrine  concerning  confession  f 

Confession  is  self-accusation  to  a  priest  having  jurisdiction 
and  the  power  of  the  keys.  All  sins  must  be  confessed  without 
reserve,  and  in  all  their  details  and  qualifying  circumstances. 
If  any  mortal  sin  is  not  confessed,  it  is  not  pardoned,  and 
if  the  omission  is  willful,  it  is  sacrilege,  and  greater  guilt  is 
incurred.     Cat.  Kom.,  Pt.  II.,  Chap.  V.,  Qu.  33,  34  and  42. 

14.  What  are  the  Protestant  arguments  against  auricular 
confession  ? 

1st.  It  has  no  warrant  in  Scripture.  The  command  is  to 
"  confess  one  to  another." 

2d.  It  perverts  the  whole  plan  of  salvation,  by  making  neces- 
sary the  mediation  of  the  priest  between  the  Christian  and 
Christ,  which  has  been  refuted  above.  Chap.  XXI.,  questions 
8  and  21. 

3d.  We  are  commanded  to  confess  to  God  immediately,  Matt, 
xi.,  28  ;  1  Tim.  ii.,  5  ;  1  John  i.,  9. 

4th.  The  practical  results  of  this  system  have  always  been 
evil,  and  this  gross  invasion  of  all  the  sacred  rights  of  personality 
is  revolting  to  every  refined  soul. 

15.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  absolution  which  the  Bomish 
priests  claim  the  power  to  grant  ? 

It  absolves  judicially,  not  merely  declaratiVely,  from  all  the 
penal  consequences  of  the  sins  confessed  by  the  authority  of  Jesus 


380  REPENTANCE. 

Christ.  They  appeal  to  Matt,  xvi.,  19  ;  xviii.,  18  ;  John  xx., 
22,  23.— Cat.  Kom.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  V.,  Qu.  13  and  17.  CouncU 
of  Trent,  Sess.  XIV.,  De  Poenitentia  Can.  IX. 

16.  What  are  the  arguments  against  the  possession  upon  the 
part  of  the  Christian  ministry  of  such  a  power  to  absolve  f 

1st.  The  Christian  ministry  is  not  a  priesthood. — See  above, 
Chap.  XXI.,  question  21. 

2d,  But  even  if  it  were,  the  conclusion  which  the  Papists  draw 
from  it  would  not  follow.  Absolution  is  a  sovereign,  not  a  priestly 
act.  This  is  plain,  from  the  definition  of  the  priesthood  given, 
(Heb.  v.,  1-6,)  from  the  Levitical  practice,  and  from  the  veiy 
nature  of  the  act  itself 

3d.  The  grant  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  whatever  it  was,  was 
not  made  to  the  ministry  as  such,  for  in  Matt,  xviii.,  1-18,  Christ 
was  addressing  the  body  of  the  disciples,  and  the  primitive  min- 
isters never  either  claimed  or  exercised  the  power  in  question. 

4th.  The  power  of  absolute  forgiveness  is  incommunicable  in 
itself,  and  was  not  granted  as  a  matter  of  fact ;  the  words  in  ques- 
tion wiU  not  bear  that  sense,  and  were  not  so  understood.  The 
practice  of  the  apostles  shows  that  their  understanding  of  the 
words  was  that  they  conveyed  merely  the  power  of  declaring  the 
conditions  on  which  God  would  pardon  sin,  and  in  accordance 
with  that  declaration,  of  admitting  or  excluding  men  from  seal- 
ing ordinances. 

5th.  This  one  false  principle  makes  Christ  of  none  effect,  and 
perverts  the  whole  gospel. — Bib.  Rep.,  Jan.  1845. 

17.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  concerning  satisfaction  as  a 
part  of  penance  ? 

By  satisfaction  is  meant  such  works  as  are  enjoined  by  the 
priest  upon  confession,  which  being  set  over  against  the  sins  con- 
fessed, for  which  contrition  has  been  professed,  are  supposed  to 
constitute  a  compensation  for  the  breach  of  God's  law,  and  in 
consideration  of  which  the  sins  are  forgiven. — Cat.  Rom.,  Part 
II.,  Chap,  v.,  Qu.  52  and  53.  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  XIV.,  De 
Poenitentia  Cans.  XII.-XIV. 

18.  What  are  the  objections  to  that  doctrine  ? 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  381 

This  doctrine  logically  involves  two  great  errors. 

Ist.  That  Christ's  atonement  does  not  render  perfect  satisfac- 
tion for  all  sins,  original  and  actual,  those  committed  as  well 
after  as  before  baptism. 

2d.  That  any  thing  we  can  do  or  suffer  temporarily  can  satisfy 
for  sin.  Every  sin  incurs  the  penalty  of  the  law,  which  is  eter- 
nal death.  These  works  of  satisfaction  are,  moreover,  com- 
manded duties,  or  they  are  not.  If  they  are,  then  the  perform- 
ance of  one  duty  can  never  satisfy  for  the  neglect  of  another,  nor 
for  the  transgression  of  the  law.  If  they  are  not,  then  they  are 
only  a  form  of  will-worship,  which  God  abhors,  Col.  ii.,  20-23. 


CHAPTER     XXX. 

JUSTIFICATION, 

1.  What  is  the  se7ise  in  which  the  loord  6LKaiog,j\ist,  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament  f 

Its  fundamental  idea  is  that  of  perfect  conformity  to  all  the 
requirements  of  the  moral  law. 

1st.  Spoken  of  things  or  actions,  Matt,  xx.,  4  ;  Col.  iv.,  1. 

2d.  Spoken  of  persons  (1.)  as  personally  holy,  conformed  to 
the  law  in  character,  Matt,  v.,  45  ;  ix.,  13.  (2.)  In  respect  to 
their  possessing  eminently  some  one  quality  demanded  by  the  law, 
Matt,  i.,  19  ;  Luke  xxiii.,  50.  (3.)  As  forensically  just,  i.  e.,  as 
conformed  to  the  requirements  of  the  law  as  the  condition  of  the 
covenant  of  life,  Kom.  i.,  17.  (4.)  Spoken  of  God  in  respect  to 
his  possession  of  the  attribute  of  distributive  justice  in  adminis- 
tering the  provisions  of  the  law  and  the  covenants,  Rom.  iii.,  26  ; 
1  John  i.,  9.  (5.)  Spoken  of  Christ  in  respect  to  his  character  as 
the  only  perfect  man,  and  to  his  representative  position  in  satis- 
fying all  the  demands  of  the  law  in  behalf  of  his  people,  Acts  iii., 
14  ;  vii.,  52 ;  xxii.,  14. 

2.  What  is  the  usage  ofthevei'h  SiKaiou),  to  Justify,  in  the  New 
Testament  f 

It  means  to  declare  a  person  to  be  just. 

1st.  Personally  conformed  to  the  law  as  to  moral  character, 
Luke  vii.,  29  ;  Rom.  iii.,  4. 

/  2d.  Forensically,  that  is,  that  the  demands  of  the  law  as  a 
condition  of  life  are  fully  satisfied  with  regard  to  him,  Acts  xiii., 
39;  Rom.  v.,  1,  9;  viii.,  30-33;  1  Cor.  vi.,  11;  Gal.  ii.  16;  iii.,  11. 

3.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  the  ivord  Sijcaioio  is  used  in  a 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  383 

forensic  sense  when  the  Scriptures  use  it  with  reference  to  the 
justification  of  sinners  binder  the  gospel  f 

1st.  In  many  instances  it  can  bear  no  other  sense.  The  un- 
godly are  said  to  be  justified  without  the  deeds  of  the  law,  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  by  faith,  freely,  and  of  grace,  through  the  agency 
of  an  advocate,  by  means  of  a  satisfaction  and  of  imputed  right- 
eousness, Rom.  iii.,  20-28 ;  iv.,  5-7  ;  v.,  1 ;  Gal.  ii.,  16  ;  iii.,  11  ; 
v.,  4  ;  1  John  ii.,  2. 

2d.  It  is  used  as  the  contrary  of  condemnation,  Rom.  viii., 
33,  34. 

3d.  The  same  idea  is  conveyed  in  many  equivalent  and  inter- 
changeable expressions,  John  iii.,  18  ;  v.,  24  ;  Rom.  iv.,  6,  7  ;  2 
Cor.  v.,  19. 

4th.  If  it  does  not  bear  this  meaning,  there  is  no  distinction 
between  justification  and  sanctification.= — Turrettin,  L.  XVI., 
Qusestio  1. 

4.  What  is  the  usage  of  the  term  diKuioavvrj^  righteousness, 
and  of  the  phrase  "  righteousness  of  God,"  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ? 

The  term  "just"  is  concrete,  designating  the  person  who  is 
perfectly  conformed  to  the  law,  or  in  respect  to  whom  all  the  de- 
mands of  the  law  are  completely  satisfied.  The  term  "  righteous- 
ness," on  the  other  hand,  is  abstract,  designating  that  quality  or 
that  obedience  or  suffering  which  satisfies  the  demands  of  the 
law,  and  which  constitutes  the  ground  upon  which  justification 
proceeds. 

Consequently,  it  sometimes  signifies,  1st,  holiness  of  charac- 
ter, Matt,  v.,  6 ;  Rom  vi,  13 ;  2d,  that  perfect  conformity  to  the 
law  in  i^erson  and  life  which  was  the  original  ground  of  justifica- 
tion under  the  covenant  of  works,  Rom.  x.,  3,  5  ;  Phil,  iii.,  9  ; 
Titus  iii.,  5;  3d,  the  vicarious  obedience  and  sufierings  of  Christ  our 
substitute,  which  he  wrought  in  our  behalf,  and  which,  when  im- 
puted to  us,  becomes  our  righteousness,  or  the  ground  of  our  justi- 
fication, Rom.  iv.,  6  ;  x.,  4  ;  1  Cor.  i.,  30  ;  which  is  received  and 
appropriated  by  us  through  faith,  Rom.  iii.,  22;  iv.,  11;  x.,  5-10; 
Gal.  ii.,  21 ;  Heb.  xi.,  7. 

The  phrase,  "  righteousness  of  God,"  occurs  in  Matt,  vi.,  33  ; 


384  JUSTIFICATION. 

Rom.  i.,  17 ;  iii.,  5,  21,  22,  25,  26  ;  x.,  3  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  21  ;  PhiL 
iii.j  9  ;  James  i.,  20  ;  2  Pet.  i.,  1.  It  evidently  means  that  per- 
fect righteousness  or  satisfaction  to  the  whole  law,  precept,  and 
penalty  alike,  which  G-od  provides,  and  which  Grod  will  accept, 
in  contrast  to  our  own  imperfect  services  or  self-inflicted  pen- 
ances, which  God  will  reject,  if  offered  as  a  ground  of  justifi- 
cation. 

5.  What  is  the  usage  of  the  term  SiKaiooig,  justification,  in  the 
New  Testament  ? 

It  occurs  only  in  Rom.  iv.,  25  ;  v.,  16,  18.  It  signifies  that 
relation  to  the  law  into  which  we  are  brought  in  consequence  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  being  made  legally  ours.  We  are 
absolved  from  all  liability  to  the  penalty,  and  the  rewards  prom- 
ised to  obedience  are  declared  to  belong  to  us. 

6.  Define  justification  in  its  gospel  sense. 

God,  as  sovereign,  elected  his  chosen  people,  and  gave  them  to 
his  Son  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  as  sovereign  he  executes 
that  covenant  when  he  makes  the  righteousness  of  Christ  theirs 
by  imputation.  Justification,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  judicial 
act  of  God  proceeding  upon  that  sovereign  imputation,  declaring 
the  law  to  be  perfectly  satisfied  in  respect  to  us.  This  involves, 
1st,  pardon  ;  2d,  restoration  to  divine  favor,  as  those  with  regard 
to  whom  all  the  promises  conditioned  upon  obedience  to  the  com- 
mands of  the  law  accrue.  It  is  most  strictly  legal,  although  he 
sovereignly  admits  and  credits  to  us  a  vicarious  righteousness, 
since  this  vicarious  righteousness  is  precisely  in  all  respects  what 
the  law  demands,  and  that  by  which  the  law  is  fulfilled. — See 
below,  question  29. 

7.  What  does  the  law  require  in  order  to  the  justification  of  a 
sinner  ? 

The  law  consists  essentially  of  a  rule  of  duty,  and  of  a 
penalty  attached  to  take  effect  in  case  of  disobedience.  In  the 
case  of  the  sinner,  therefore,  who  has  already  incurred  the  pen- 
alty, the  law  demands  that,  besides  the  rendering  of  perfect 
obedience,  the  penalty  also  should  be  suffered,  Rom.  x.,  5  ;  Gal. 
iii.,  10-13. 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  385 

8.  Prove  that  works  can  not  be  the  ground  of  a  sinner' s  justi- 
fication. 

Paul  repeatedly  asserts  this,  (Gal.  ii.,  16,)  and  declares  that  we 
are  not  justified  by  our  own  righteousness,  which  comes  by  obedi- 
ence to  the  law,  Phil,  iii.,  9.  He  also  proves  the  same  by  several 
arguments — 

1st.  The  law  demands  perfect  obedience.  All  works  not  per- 
fect, therefore,  lead  to  condemnation,  and  no  act  of  obedience 
at  one  time  can  atone  for  disobedience  at  another.  Gal.  iii.,  10, 
21 ;  v.,  3. 

2d.  If  we  are  justified  by  works,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain, 
Gal.  ii.,  21  ;  v.,  4. 

3d.  If  it  were  of  works  it  would  not  be  of  grace.  Rom.  xi.,  6  ; 
Eph.  ii.,  8,  9. 

4th.  It  would  afford  cause  for  boasting,  Rom,  iii.,  27  ;  iv.,  2. 

5th.  He  also  quotes  the  Old  Testament  to  prove  that  all  men 
are  sinners,  Rom,  ii.,  10  ;  that  consequently  they  can  not  be  jus- 
tified by  works,  Ps.  cxliii.,  2  ;  Rom.  iv.,  7,  8.  He  quotes  Hab. 
ii.,  4,  to  prove  that  "  the  just  by  faith  shall  live  ;"  and  he  cites 
the  example  of  Abraham,  Gal.  iii.,  6. 

9.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  kind  of  works 
which  the  Scriptures  teach  are  not  siiffi^cient  for  justification  ? 

The  Pelagians  admit  that  works  of  obedience  to  the  ceremonial 
law  arc  of  this  nature,  but  aflfirm  that  works  of  obedience  to  the 
moral  law  are  the  proper  and  only  ground  of  justification.  The 
Romanists  admit  that  works  wrought  in  the  natural  strength, 
previous  to  regeneration,  are  destitute  of  merit,  and  unavailable 
for  justification,  but  they  maintain  that  original  sin  and  previous 
actual  transgressions  having  been  forgiven  in  baptism  for  Christ's 
sake,  good  works  afterwards  performed  through  grace  have,  in 
consequence  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  the  virtue,  1st,  of  meriting 
heaven  ;  2d,  of  making  satisfaction  for  sins.  We  are  justified, 
then,  by  evangelical  obedience. — Cat.  Rom.,  Part  II.,  Chapter  Y. 
Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  VI.,  Can.  XXIV.  and  XXXII.  Protest- 
ants deny  the  justifying  efficiency  of  all  classes  of  works  equally. 

10.  Hoio  may  it  be  shoion  that  no  class  of  works,  whether 
ceremonial,  moral,  or  spiritual,  canjiistify  ? 

25 


386  JUSTIFICATION. 

1st.  When  the  Scriptures  deny  thcat  justification  can  be  by- 
works,  the  term  "  works"  is  always  used  generally  as  obedience  to 
the  whole  revealed  will  of  God,  however  made  known.  Works 
of  obedience  rendered  to  one  law,  as  a  ground  of  justification,  are 
never  contrasted  with  works  wrought  in  obedience  to  another  law, 
but  with  grace,  Rom.  xi.,  6  ;  iv.,  4.  God  demands  perfect  obedi- 
ence to  his  whole  will  as  revealed  to  any  individual  man.  But 
since  every  man  is  a  sinner,  justification  by  the  law  is  equally  im- 
possible for  all,  Rom.  ii.,  14,  15  ;  iii.,  9,  10. 

2d.  The  believer  is  justified  without  the  deeds  of  the  law, 
Rom.  iii.,  28,  and  God  justifies  the  ungodly  in  ChrLst,  Rom.  iv.,  5. 

3d.  Justification  is  asserted  to  rest  altogether  upon  a  different 
foundation.  It  is  "in  the  name  of  Christ,"  1  Cor.  vi.,  11  ;  "  by 
his  blood,"  Rom.  v.,  9  ;  "freely,"  "by  his  grace,"  "by  faith," 
Rom.  iii.,  24,  28. 

4th.  Paul  proves  that  instead  of  our  being  justified  by  good 
works,  such  works  are  rendered  possible  to  us  only  in  that  new 
relation  to  God  into  which  we  are  introduced  by  justification, 
Eph.  ii.,  8-10  ;  Roni.  Gth  and  7th  chapters. 

11.  How  can  Jam  s  ii.,  14-26,  he  reconciled  with  this  doc- 
trine ? 

James  is  not  sp;_'aking  of  the  meritorious  ground  of  justifica- 
tion, but  of  the  relation  which  good  works  sustain  to  a  genuine 
faith  as  its  fruit  and  evidence.  The  meritorious  ground  of  justi- 
fication is  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  Rom.  x.,  4  ;  1  Cor.  i.,  30. 
Faith  is  the  essential  prerequisite  and  instrument  of  receiving 
that  righteousness,  Eph.  ii.,  8.  James,  in  the  passage  cited,  sim- 
ply declares  and  argues  the  truth  that  the  faith  which  is  thus  the 
instrumental  cause  of  justification,  is  never  a  dead,  but  always  a 
living  and  fruitful  principle.  Paul  teaches  the  same  truth  often, 
"  Faith  works  by  love,"  Gal.  v.,  6,  and  "  love  is  the  fulfilling  of 
the  law,"  Rom.  xiii.,  10. 

12.  What  do  the  Scriptures  declare  to  be  the  true  and  only 
ground  of  justification  ? 

Justification  is  a  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  infinitely  wise 
and  holy  God  that  the  law  is  satisfied.  The  law  is,  like  its  Au- 
tlior,  absolutely  unchangeable,  and  can  be  satisfied  by  nothing 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  387 

else  than  an  absolutely  perfect  righteousness,  at  once  fulfilling 
the  precept,  and  suffering  the  penalty.  This  was  rendered  by 
Christ  as  oui*  representative,  and  his  perfect  righteousness,  as  im- 
puted to  us,  is  the  sole  and  strictly  legal  ground  of  our  justifica- 
tion. Thus  he  is  made  for  us  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteous- 
ness, and  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of  Grod  in  him,  Rom.  iii., 
24  ;  v.,  9,  19  ;  viii.,  1  ;  x.,  4 ;  1  Cor.  i.,  30  ;  vi.,  11  ;  2  Cor.  v., 
21 ;  Acts  iii.,  39. 

13.  Hoiv  can  it  he  proved  that  Christ's  active  obedience  to  the 
pi'ecepfs  of  the  law  is  included  in  that  righteousness  by  which  we 
are  justified  ? 

1st.  The  condition  of  the  covenant  of  works  was  perfect  obe- 
dience. This  covenant  having  failed  in  the  hands  of  the  first 
Adam,  it  must  be  fulfilled  in  the  hands  of  the  second  Adam,  since 
in  the  covenant  of  grace  Christ  assumed  all  of  the  undischarged 
obligations  of  his  people  under  the  covenant  of  works.  His  suf- 
fering discharges  the  penalty,  but  only  his  active  obedience  ful- 
fills the  condition. 

2d.  All  the  promises  of  salvation  are  attached  to  obedience, 
not  to  suffering.  Matt,  xix.,  16 ;  Gal.  iii.,  12. 

3d.  Christ  came  to  fulfill  the  whole  law,  Is.  xlii.,  21  ;  Rom. 
iii.  31 ;  1  Cor.  i.,  30. 

4th.  The  obedience  of  Christ  is  expressly  contrasted  with  the 
disobedience  of  Adam,  Rom.  v.,  19. 

14.  How  may  it  he  shown  that  Christ's  obedience  was  free  ? 

Although  Christ  was  made  under  the  law  by  being  born  of  the 
woman,  and  rendered  obedience  to  that  law  in  the  exercises  of  his 
created  human  nature,  yet  he  did  not  owe  that  obedience  for  him- 
self, but  rendered  it  freely  that  its  merits  might  be  imputed  to 
his  people,  because  the  claims  of  law  terminate  not  upon  nature, 
but  upon  persons ;  and  he  was  always  a  divine  person.  As  he 
suffered,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  so  he  obeyed,  the  Lawgiver  in 
the  place  of  the  law-subject. 

15.  In  lohat  sense  is  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  to  be- 
lievers ? 

Imputation  is  an  act  of  God  as  sovereign  judge,  at  once  judicial 


388  JUSTIFICATION. 

and  sovereign,  whereby  he,  1st,  makes  the  guilt,  legal  responsi- 
bility, of  our  sins  really  Christ's,  and  punishes  them  in  him,  Is. 
liii.,  6  ;  John  i.,  29  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  21  ;  and,  2d,  makes  the  merit, 
legal  rights,  of  Christ's  righteousness  ours,  and  then  treats  us  as 
persons  legally  invested  with  all  those  rights,  Rom.  iv.,  6  ;  x.,  4  ; 
1  Cor.  i.,  30  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  21 ;  Phil,  iii.,  9. 

As  Christ  is  not  made  a  sinner  by  the  imputation  to  him  of 
our  sins,  so  we  are  not  made  holy  by  the  imputation  to  us  of  his 
righteousness.  The  transfer  is  only  of  guilt  from  us  to  him,  and 
of  merit  from  him  to  us.  He  justly  suffered  the  punishment  due 
to  our  sins,  and  we  justly  receive  the  rewards  due  to  his  righte- 
ousness, 1  John  i.,  9. 

16.  Upon  what  ground  does  this  imputation  proceed  ? 

Upon  the  union  federal,  spiritual,  and  vital,  which  subsists 
between  Christ  and  his  people.  Which  union,  in  turn,  rests  upon 
the  eternal  decree  of  election  common  to  all  the  persons  of  the 
Godhead,  and  upon  the  eternal  covenant  of  grace  formed  between 
the  Father  as  God  absolute  and  the  Son  as  Mediator.  Thus  the 
ultimate  ground  of  imputation  is  the  eternal  nature  and  imperial 
will  of  God,  the  fountain  of  all  law  and  all  right. 

17.  How  may  the  fact  of  this  imputation  he  proved  from 
Scripture  ? 

See  Rom.  v.,  12-21.  Compare  Rom,  iv.,  6  ;  iii.,  21,  with 
Rom.  v.,  19. 

The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  essentially  involved  in  the  doc- 
trine of  substitution.  If  Christ  obeyed  and  suffered  in  our  place 
it  can  only  be  because  our  sins  were  imputed  to  him,  which  is 
directly  asserted  in  Scripture,  Isa.  liii.,  6  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  21  ;  1  Pet. 
ii.,  24  ;  and,  if  so,  the  merit  of  that  obedience  and  suffering  must 
accrue  to  us.  Matt,  xx.,  28  ;  1  Tim.  ii.,  6  ;  1  Pet.  iii.,  18.  See 
above,  Chapter  XXII.,  question  13. 

This  doctrine  is  also  taught  by  those  passages  which  affirm 
that  Christ  fulfilled  the  law,  Rom.  iii.,  31  ;  x.,  4 ;  and  by  those 
which  assert  that  we  are  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
1  Cor.  vi.,  11  ;  Rom.  viii.,  1,  etc. 

Tliis  doctrine,  moreover,  stands  or  falls  with  the  whole  view  we 
have  presented  of  the  piiesthood  of  Christ,  of  the  justice  of  God, 


APPLICATION    OF    KEDEMPTION.  389 

of  the  covenants  of  works  and  of  grace,  and  of  the  nature  of  the 
atonement ;  to  which  subjects,  under  their  respective  heads,  the 
reader  is  referred. 

18.  What  are  the  tiuo  effects  ascribed  to  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness  ? 

Christ's  righteousness  satisfies,  1st,  the  penalty  of  the  law  ; 
2d,  then  the  positive  conditions  of  the  covenant  of  works,  i.  e., 
obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the  law..  The  imputation  of  that 
righteousness  to  the  believer,  therefore,  secures,  1st,  the  remission 
of  the  penalty,  pardon  of  sins  ;  2d,  the  recognition  and  treatment 
of  the  believer  as  one  with  respect  to  whom  the  covenant  is  ful- 
filled, and  to  whom  all  its  promises  and  advantages  legally  accrue. 
See  below,  question  29. 

19.  Are  the  sins  of  believers,  committed  subsequently  to  their 
justification,  included  in  the  pardo7i  ivhich  is  consequent  to  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  ;  and,  if  so,  in  lohat  loay  '^ 

The  elect,  although  embraced  in  the  purpose  of  God,  and  in 
his  covenant  with  his  Son  from  eternity,  are  not  effectively  united 
to  Christ  until  the  time  of  their  regeneration,  when,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  union  with  him,  and  the  imputation  of  his  right- 
eousness to  them,  their  relation  to  the  law  is  permanently  changed. 
Although  the  immutable  law  always  continues  their  perfect  stand- 
ard of  exj)erience  and  of  action,  it  is  no  longer  to  them  a  condition 
of  the  covenant  of  life,  because  that  covenant  has  been  fully  dis- 
charged for  them  by  their  sponsor.  God  no  longer  imputes  sin  to 
them  to  the  end  of  judicial  punishment.  Every  suftering  which 
they  henceforth  endure  is  of  the  nature  of  chastisement,  designed 
for  their  correction  and  improvement,  and  forms,  in  its  relation 
to  them,  no  part  of  the  jienalty  of  the  law. 

20.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  class  of  sins 
which  are  forgiven  when  the  sinner  is  justified  'i 

Komanists  teach  that  original  sin  and  all  actual  transgressions 
prior  to  baptism  are  forgiven  for  Christ's  sake,  through  the  re- 
ception of  that  sacrament,  and  that  after  baptism,  sins,  as  they 
are  committed,  are  through  the  merits  of  Christ  forgiven  in  the 


390  JUSTIFICATION. 

observance  of  the  sacrament  of  penance.  See  above,  Chapter 
XXIX.,  question  11. 

Dr.  Pusey  has  revived  an  ancient  doctrine  that  in  baptism  all 
past  sins,  original  and  actual,  are  forgiven  ;  but  his  system  makea 
no  provision  for  sins  subsequently  committed. 

Many  Protestants  have  held  that  only  past  and  present  sins 
arc  forgiven  in  the  first  act  of  justification,  and  that  sins  after 
regeneration,  as  they  occur,  are  forgiven  upon  renewed  acts  of 
faith. 

The  true  view,  however,  is,  that  in  consequence  of  the  imputa- 
tion to  him  of  Christ's  righteousness,  the  believer  is  emancipated 
from  his  former  federal  relation  to  the  law,  and  consequently 
henceforth  no  sin  is  charged  to  him  to  the  end  of  judicial  condem- 
nation. This  follows  from  the  nature  of  justification,  as  stated 
above,  and  it  is  illustrated  by  the  recorded  experience  of  Paul, 
who,  while  complaining  of  the  law  of  sin,  still  waring  in  his  mem- 
bers, yet  never  doubted  of  his  filial  relation  to  God,  nor  of  the 
forgiveness  of  his  sins. 

21.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  relation  hetiveen 
faith  and  justif  cation  ? 

Socinians  hold  that  faith,  including  obedience,  is  the  proper 
meritorious  ground  of  justification. — Cat.  Kac,  quest.  418-421, 
and  453. 

Arminians  teach  that  although  faith  has  no  merit  in  itself, 
since  it  is  the  gift  of  God,  yet,  as  a  living  principle,  including 
evangelical  obedience,  it  is  graciously,  for  Christ's  merits'  sake, 
imputed  to  us  for  righteousness,  i.  e.,  accepted  as  righteousness, 
upon  the  ground  of  which  we  are  declared  just. — Limborch, 
Theol.  Christ.  6,  4,  22,  and  6,  4,  46. 

The  orthodox  view  is  that  the  active  and  passive  obedience 
of  Christ  satisfying  both  the  precept  and  penalty  of  the  law  as  a 
covenant  of  life,  and  thus  constituting  a  perfect  righteousness,  is, 
upon  being  appropriated  by  the  believer  in  the  act  of  faith,  actu- 
ally made  his,  in  a  legal  sense,  by  imputation.  Faith,  therefore, 
is  the  mere  instrument  whereby  we  partake  in  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  which  is  the  true  ground  of  our  justification. 

22.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  faith  is  only  the  instrumental 
cause  of  Justif  cation. 


APPLICATION   OF    REDEMPTION.  391 

1st.  From  the  nature  of  folth  itself.  (1.)  It  is  not  of  our- 
selves, it  is  the  gift  of  God,  Eph.  ii.,  8  ;  Phil,  i.,  29.  (2.)  It  is 
one  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and,  therefore,  not  the  meritorious 
ground  of  spiritual  blessings.  Gal.  v.  22.  (3.)  It  is  an  act  of  the 
soul,  and  therefore  a  work,  but  though,  by  means  of  faith,  justi- 
fication is  not  by  works,  Rom.  iv.,  2-5  ;  xi.,  6,  (4.)  Justifying 
faith  terminates  on  or  in  Christ,  in  his  blood  and  sacrifice,  and  in 
the  promises  of  God ;  in  its  very  essence,  therefore,  it  involves  trust, 
and,  denying  its  own  justifying  value,  affirms  the  sole  merit  of 
that  on  which  it  trusts,  Rom.  iii.,  25,  26  ;  iv.,  20,  22  ;  Gal.  iii., 
26  ;  Eph.  i.,  12,  13  ;  1  John  v.,  10.  (5.)  The  law  necessarily 
demands  a  perfect  righteousness,  but  faith,  even  when  combined 
with  the  evangelical  obedience  which  springs  from  it,  is  not  a  per- 
fect righteousness. 

2d.  The  Scriptures,  when  referring  to  the  relation  of  justifica- 
tion to  faith,  use  the  terms  ^/c  niarecjgj  by  faith,  and  6td  niaTeojg^ 
by  or  through  faith,  but  never  Slo,  -niariv,  on  account  of  faith, 
Gal.  ii.,  16. 

3d.  Faith  is  distinguished  from  the  righteousness  which 
it  apprehends,  Rom.  i.,  17  ;  Phil,  iii.,  8-11. — Turrettin,  L. 
16,  Q.  7. 

23.   What  is  the  specific  object  of  justifying  faith  ? 

The  Socinians,  denying  the  divinity  of  Christ,  make  the  act 
of  justifying  faith  to  terminate  "in  God  through  Christ." — Rao. 
Cat.,  Q.  418. 

The  Romanists,  confounding  justification  and  sanctification, 
make  the  whole  revelation  of  God  the  object  of  the  faith  that 
justifies. — Cat.  Rom.,  Part  I.,  Chap.  1. 

The  scriptural  doctrine  is,  that  while  the  renewed  heart  be- 
lieves equally  every  ascertained  word  of  God,  the  specific  act  of 
faith,  whereby  we  are  justified,  terminates  upon  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ  as  Mediator. 

This  is  proved,  1st,  from  express  declarations  of  Scripture, 
Rom.  iii.,  22,  25  ;  Gal.  ii.,  16  ;  Phil,  iii.,  9.  2d.  By  the  declara- 
tion that  we  are  saved  by  believing  in  him.  Acts  x.,  43  ;  xvi.,  31  ; 
John  iii.,  16,  36.  3d.  By  those  figurative  expressions  which  illus- 
trate the  act  of  saving  faitli  as  "  looking  to  Christ,"  etc..  Is.  xlv., 
22 ;  John  i.,  12  ;  vi.,  35,  37  ;  Matt,  xi.,  28.     4th.  Unbelief  is 


392  JUSTIFICATION. 

the  refusing  the  righteousness  which  God  provides,  i,  e.,  Christ, 
Rom.  X.,  3,  4. 

24.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  peace  which  flows  from  justi- 
fication '^ 

1st.  Peace  with  God,  his  justice  being  completely  satisfied 
through  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  Eom.  v.,  1  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  19  ; 
Col.  i.,  21 ;  Eph.  ii.,  14.  In  witness  whereof  his  Holy  Spirit  is 
given  to  us,  Rom.  viii.,  15,  16  ;  Heb.  x.,  15,  17.  His  love  shed 
abroad  in  our  hearts,  Rom.  v.,  .5,  and  our  habitual  fellowship 
with  him  established,  1  John  i.,  3.  2d.  Inward  peace  of  con- 
science, including  consciousness  of  our  reconciliation  with  God 
through  the  oj)eration  of  his  Spirit,  as  above,  and  the  appease- 
ment of  our  self-condemning  conscience  through  the  apprehension 
of  the  righteousness  by  wliich  we  are  justified,  Heb.  ix.,  14  ;  x., 
2,22. 

25.  What  other  benefits  fioiv  from  justification  ? 

Being  justified  on  the  ground  of  a  perfect  righteousness,  our 
whole  relation  to  God  and  the  law  is  changed  ;  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  adoption,  sanctification,  perseverance,  the  working 
of  all  things  together  for  good  in  this  life,  deliverance  in 
death,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  final  glorification,  all 
result. 

26.  Hoiv  may  it  be  shoivn  that  this  vieio  of  justification  is  not 
inconsistent  with  its  free  and  gracious  character  ? 

See  above.  Chap.  XXII.,  question  21. 

27.  Sow  does  the  apostle  show  that  justification  by  faith  does 
not  lead  to  licentiousness  ? 

Prop.  1st.  Where  sin  abounded  grace  did  much  more  abound, 
Rom.  v.,  20. 

Prop.  2d.  Shall  we  conclude,  therefore,  that  we  are  to  con- 
tmue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ?    God  forbid.    Rom.  vi.,  1,  2. 

Prop.  3d.  The  federal  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ, 
which  secures  our  justification,  is  the  foundation  of,  and  is  insep- 
arable from,  that  vital  spiritual  union  with  him,  which  secures 
our  sanctification,  Rom.  vi.,  2-7. 


APPLICATION    OF   REDEMPTION,  393 

Prop.  4th.  This  metliod  of  justiiication,  so  far  from  leading  to 
licentiousness,  secures  the  only  conditions  under  which  we  could 
be  holy.  (1.)  This  method  of  justification,  by  changing  our  rela- 
tion to  God,  enables  us  to  return  to  him  in  the  way  of  a  free, 
loving  service,  Kom.  vi.,  14 ;  vii.,  1-6.  (2.)  It  alone  deli  verb  us 
from  the  spirit  of  bondage  and  fear,  and  gives  us  that  of  adoption 
and  love,  Kom.  viii.,  1-17  ;  xiii.,  10  ;  Gal.  v.,  6  ;  1  John  iv.,  18 ; 
2  John  6. 

28.  In  loTiat  i^espect  did  the  doctrine  of  Piscatoi'  on  this  sub- 
ject differ  fi^om  that  of  the  Reformed  Churches  ? 

Piscator,  a  French  Protestant  divine,  who  flourished  during 
the  closing  years  of  the  sixteenth  century,  taught,  1st,  that,  as 
to  his  human  nature,  Christ  was  under  the  law  in  the  same  sense 
as  any  other  creature,  and  that,  therefore,  he  could  only  obey  the 
law  for  himself ;  2d,  that  if  Christ  had  obeyed  the  law  in  our 
place,  the  law  could  not  claim  a  second  fulfillment  of  us,  and, 
consequently.  Christians  would  be  under  no  obligations  to  obey 
the  law  of  God  ;  3d,  that  if  Christ  had  both  obeyed  the  precept 
of  the  law  and  suffered  its  penalty,  then  the  law  would  have  been 
doubly  fulfilled,  since  the  claims  of  the  precept  and  the  penalty 
of  the  law  are  alternative,  not  coincident. 

This  doctrine  was  expressly  condemned  in  the  Keformed 
churches  of  Switzerland  and  Holland,  and  by  the  French  synods 
held  in  the  years  1603,  1612,  and  1614.  In  1615,  however,  the 
Synod  tacitly  allowed  these  views  to  pass  without  condemnation. — 
Mosheim's  Hist. 

29.  How  7nay  it  be  shown  that  justification  is  not  mere 
pardon  ? 

Piscator  erred,  from  failing  to  distinguish,  1st,  that  the  claims 
of  law  terminate  not  upon  natures,  but  upon  persons.  Christ  was 
a  divine  person,  and  therefore  his  obedience  was  free.  2d.  That 
there  is  an  evident  difference  between  a  federal  relation  to  the  law 
as  a  condition  of  salvation,  and  a  natural  relation  to  law  as  a  rule 
of  life.  Christ  discharged  the  former  as  our  federal  representative. 
The  latter  necessarily  attaches  to  the  believer  as  to  all  moral 
agents  for  ever. 

Justification  is  more  than  pardon.     1st.    Because  the  very 


394  JUSTIFICATION. 

word  means  to  pronounce  just,  i.  e.,  complete  in  the  eye  of  law, 
and  the  law  in  its  federal  relation  "  embraced  a  two-fold  sanc- 
tion, viz.,  the  penalty  of  death  for  transgressors,  and  the  reward 
of  eternal  life  for  the  obedient."  2d.  That  righteousness  which 
is  the  ground  of  justij&cation  is  that  which  satisfies  law.  3d. 
Because  we  are  said  to  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him. 
4th.  We  are  declared  not  to  be  any  longer  under  the  law,  but 
under  gi-ace,  Eom.  vi.,  14  ;  Gal.  iv.,  4,  5.  Therefore,  the  whole 
law  must  have  been  satisfied.  5th.  Because  not  only  pardon, 
but  peace,  reconciliation,  adoption,  coheirship  with  Christ,  and 
eternal  glory,  are  all  secured  for  us  by  the  work  of  Christ  just  as 
much  as  forgiveness  of  sins,  but  these  rewards  were  attached  to 
the  precept,  not  the  penalty.  See  above,  question  13.  Rom.  v., 
1-10  ;  Acts  xxvi.,  18  ;  Eev.  i.,  5,  6,  etc. 

30.  In  what  respect  does  the  governmental  theory  of  the  atone- 
ment modify  the  doctrine  of  justification  ? 

See  above,  Chap.  XXII.,  question  6. 

1st.  It  follows,  from  that  theory,  that  justification  is  a  sove- 
reign, not  a  judicial  act  of  God.  Christ  has  not  satisfied  the  law, 
but  merely  made  it  consistent  with  the  government  of  God  to  set 
aside  the  law  in  the  case  of  believing  men. 

2d.  As  Christ  did  not  die  as  a  substitute,  it  follows  that  his 
righteousness  is  not  imputed  ;  it  is  the  occasion,  not  the  ground 
of  justification. 

3d.  As  Christ  did  not  die  as  a  substitute,  there  is  no  strictly 
federal  union  between  Christ  and  his  people,  and  faith  can  not 
be  the  instrument  of  salvation  by  being  the  means  of  uniting  us 
to  Christ,  but  only  the  arbitrary  condition  of  justification,  or  the 
means  of  recommending  us  to  God. 

31.  Hoio  does  the  Arminian  theory  as  to  the  nature  and  de- 
sign of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  modify  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation ? 

They  hold,  1st,  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  satisfaction,  that> 
although  it  was  a  real  propitiation  rendered  to  justice  for  sins,  it 
was  not  in  the  rigor  of  justice  perfect,  but  Avas  graciously  accepted 
and  acted  on  as  such  by  God. — Limborch,  Apol.  Theo.,  3,  22,  5. 
2d.  That  it  was  not  strictly  the  substitution  of  Christ  in  place 


APPLICATION   OF    REDEMPTION.  395 

of  his  elect,  but  rather  that  he  suffered  the  wrath  of  God  in  be- 
half of  all  men,  in  order  to  make  it  consistent  with  justice  for 
God  to  offer  salvation  to  all  men  upon  condition  of  faith. 

Therefore  they  regard  justification  as  a  sovereign,  not  a  judi- 
cial act,  1st.  In  accepting  the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  sufficient  to 
enable  God  consistently  to  offer  to  men  salvation  on  the  terms  of 
the  new  covenant  of  grace,  i.  e.,  on  the  condition  of  faith.  2d. 
In  imputing  to  the  believer  his  faith  for  righteousness  for  Christ's 
sake. 

This  faith  they  make,  1st.  To  include  evangelical  obedience, 
i.  e.,  the  whole  principle  of  religion  in  heart  and  life.  2d.  They 
regard  it  as  the  graciously  admitted  ground,  rather  than  the 
mere  instrument  of  justification  ;  faith  being  counted  for  right- 
eousness, because  Christ  died. — Limborch,  Theo.  Christ.,  6,  4, 
22,  and  6,  4,  46. 

This  theory,  besides  being  opposed  by  all  the  arguments  we 
have  above  presented  in  establishing  the  orthodox  doctrine,  labors 
under  the  further  objections — 

1st.  It  fails  to  render  a  clear  account  as  to  how  the  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ  makes  it  consistent  with  divine  justice  to  save  men 
upon  the  condition  of  faith.  If  Christ  did  not  obey  and  suffer 
strictly  as  the  substitute  of  his  people,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the 
justice  of  God,  as  it  respects  them,  could  have  been  appeased  ; 
and  if  he  did  so  fulfil  the  demands  of  justice  in  their  place,  then 
the  orthodox  view,  as  above  stated,  is  admitted. 

2d.  It  fails  to  render  a  clear  account  of  the  relation  of  faith  to 
justification,  (1.)  Because  faith  in  Christ,  including  trust,  neces- 
sarily implies  that  the  merits  of  Christ  upon  which  the  trust  ter- 
minates is  the  ground  of  justification.  (2.)  Faith  must  be  either 
the  ground  or  the  mere  instrument  of  justification.  If  it  be  the 
latter  then  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  is  the  object  of 
faith,  is  that  ground.  If  it  be  the  former,  then  what  is  made  of 
the  merits  of  Christ  upon  which  faith  rests  ? 

32.  How  do  the  Romanists  defirie  justification  ? 

They  confound  justification  with  sanctification.  It  is,  1st,  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  ;  2d,  the  removal  of  inherent  sin  for  Christ's 
sake  ;  3d,  the  positive  infusion  of  grace. 

Of  this  justification  they  teach  that  the  final  cause  is  the  glory 


396  JUSTIFICATION. 

of  God  and  eternal  life.  The  efficient  cause  is  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  meritorious  cause  the  work  of  Christ.  The 
instrumental  cause  baptism.  The  formal  cause  the  influence  of 
grace,  whereby  we  are  made  not  merely  forensically  but  inherently 
righteous. — Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  VI.,  Chapter  VII. 

They  define  faith  in  its  relation  to  justification  to  be  the 
beginning  of  human  salvation,  the  fountain  and  root  of  all  justi- 
fication, i.  e.,  of  spiritual  life.  They  consequently  hold  that  jus- 
tification is  progressive,  and  that  when  a  man  receives  a  new  na- 
ture in  baptism,  and  the  work  of  justification  is  commenced  in 
him  with  the  forgiveness  and  the  removal  of  sin,  the  work  is  to  be 
carried  on  by  the  exercise  of  the  grace  implanted,  i.  e.,  by  good 
works.  Since  they  confound  justification  with  sanctification,  they 
necessarily  deny  that  men  are  justified  by  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  or  by  mere  faith  without  works. — Canon 
9th  and  11th  de  Justificatione. 

They  admit  that  justification  is  entirely  gracious,  i.  e.,  of  the 
mere  mercy  of  God,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  merits  of  Jesus  Chiist, 
as  neither  the  spiritual  exercises  nor  the  works  of  men  previous 
to  justification  have  any  merit  whatsoever. — Council  of  Trent, 
Sess.  VI.,  Chapter  VIII. 

33.  What  are  the  points  of  difference  between  Protestants  and 
Romanists  on  this  whole  subject  ? 

1st.  As  to  the  nature  of  justification.  We  regard  it  as  a 
judicial  act  of  God,  declaring  the  believer  to  be  forensically  just, 
on  the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  made  his  by  impu- 
tation.    They  regard  it  as  the  infusion  of  inherent  grace. 

2d.  As  to  its  meritorious  ground.  Both  say  the  merits  of 
Christ.  But  they  say  these  merits  are  made  ours  by  sancti- 
fication. We,  by  imputation,  through  the  instrumentality  of 
faith. 

3d.  As  to  the  nature  and  office  of  faith.  We  say  that  it  is 
the  instrument  ;  they  the  beginning  and  root  of  justification. 

4th.  They  say  that  justification  is  progressive. 

5th.  That  it  may  be  lost  by  mortal  sin,  and  regained  through 
the  sacrament  of  penance. 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION,  397 

34.  What  are  the  leading  arguments  against  the  Romanist 
view  on  this  subject  ? 

Ist.  This  whole  doctrine  is  confused  and  unintelligible.  (1.) 
It  confounds  under  one  definition  two  matters  entirely  distinct, 
namely,  the  forensic  remission  of  the  condemnation  due  to  sin  with 
the  washing  away  of  inherent  sin,  and  the  introduction  to  a  state 
of  covenant  favor  with  God  with  the  infusion  of  inherent  grace. 
(2.)  It  renders  no  sensible  account  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  merit  of  Christ  propitiates  divine  justice, 

2d,  Their  definition  is  refuted  by  all  the  evidence  above  ex- 
hibited, that  the  terms  "justification"  and  "  righteousness"  are 
used  in  Scripture  in  a  forensic  sense. 

3d.  Their  view,  by  making  our  inherent' grace  wrought  in  us 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  for  Christ's  sake  the  ground  of  our  accept- 
ance with  God,  subverts  the  whole  gospel.  It  is  of  the  very  essence 
of  the  gospel  that  the  ground  of  our  acceptance  w^th  the  Father 
is  the  mediatorial  work  of  the  Son,  who  is  for  us  the  end  of  the 
law  for  righteousness,  and  not  our  own  graces. 

4th.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  on  the  ground  of  the  pro- 
pitiation of  Christ  God  justifies  the  believer  as  ungodly,  not  as 
sanctified.  It  certainly  could  not  require  an  atonement  to  render 
God  both  just  and  the  sanctijier  of  the  ungodly,  Eom.  iv.,  5. 

5th.  The  phrases  to  impute,  reckon,  count  sin  or  righteous- 
ness are  absolutely  consistent  only  with  a  forensic  interpretation. 
To  impute  righteousness  without  works  in  the  forensic  sense,  in 
the  4th  chapter  of  Romans,  is  reasonable.  To  impute  inherent 
grace  without  works  is  nonsense. 

6th.  Their  definition  is  refuted  by  all  those  arguments  which 
establish  the  true  view  with  respect  to  the  nature  and  office  of 
justifying  faith.     See  above,  questions  21-23. 


CHAPTER    XXXI. 

ADOPTION. 

1.  To  what  classes  of  creatures  is  the  term  "  sons,"  or  "  chil- 
dren  of  God,"  applied  in  the  Scriptures,  and  on  ivhat  grounds  is 
that  application  made  ? 

1st.  In  the  singular  it  is  applied,  in  a  supreme  and  incom- 
municable sense,  to  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  alone. 

2d.  To  angels  (1.)  because  they  are  God's  favored  creatures,  (2.) 
because  as  holy  intelligences  they  are  like  him,  Job  i.,  6  ; 
xxxviii.,  7. 

3d.  To  human  magistrates,  because  they  possess  authority 
delegated  from  God,  and  in  that  respect  resemble  him,  Ps. 
Ixxxii.,  6. 

4th.  To  good  men  as  the  subjects  of  a  divine  adoption. 

This  adoption,  and  the  consequent  sonship  it  confers  is  two- 
fold, (1.)  general  and  external,  Ex.  iv,,  22  ;  Rom.  ix.,  4  ;  (2.) 
special,  spiritual  and  immortal.  Gal.  iv.,  4,  5  ;  Eph.  i.,  4-6. 

2.  What  is  the  Adoption  of  which  believers  are  the  subjects  in 
Chi'ist  ;  and  luhat  relation  does  the  conception  ivhich  this  word 
represents  in  Scripttire  sustain  to  those  repj'esentcd  by  the  terms 
justification,  regeneration,  and  sanctification  ? 

Turrettin  makes  adoption  a  constituent  part  of  justification. 
He  says  that  in  execution  of  the  covenant  of  grace  God  sove- 
reignly imputes  to  the  elect,  upon  their  exercise  of  faith,  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  which  was  the  fulfilling  of  the  whole  law, 
precept  as  well  as  penalty,  and  therefore  the  legal  ground,  under 
the  covenant  of  works,  for  securing  to  his  people  both  remission 
of  the  penalty  and  a  legal  right  to  all  the  promises  conditioned 
upon  obedience.     Upon  the  ground  of  this  sovereign  imputation 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  399 

God  judicially  pronounces  the  law,  in  its  federal  relations,  to  be 
perfectly  satisfied  with  regard  to  them,  i.  e.,  he  justifies  them, 
which  involves  two  things,  1st,  the  remission  of  the  penalty  due 
to  their  sins,  2d,  the  endowing  them  with  all  the  rights  and  rela- 
tions which  accrue  from  the  positive  fulfillment  of  the  covenant 
of  works  by  Christ  in  their  behalf.  This  second  constituent  of 
justification  he  calls  adoption,  which  essentially  agrees  with  the 
definition  of  adoption  given  in  our  Con.  Faith,  Chapter  XII.,  L. 
Cat.,  Q.  74  ;  S.  Cat.,  Q.  34.— Turrettin,  L.  16,  Q.  4  and  6. 

The  definition  we  have  given  of  justification,  under  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  agrees  precisely  with  that  of  Turrettin,  only  we 
have  not  made  the  same  application  of  the  word  adojotion,  be- 
cause this  word,  as  used  in  the  Scriptures,  does  not  appear  to 
convey  the  idea  of  a  mere  forensic  act  of  God,  changing  the  rela- 
tions of  his  adopted  children,  but  rather  a  most  excellent  com- 
plex view  of  the  believer  as  at  once  the  subject  of  regeneration 
and  justification  together.  That  is,  of  the  new  creature  in  his 
new  relations. 

The  instant  a  sinner  is  united  to  Christ  in  the  exercise  of 
faith,  there  is  accomplished  in  him  simultaneously  and  insepara- 
bly, 1st,  a  total  change  of  relation  to  God,  and  to  the  law  as  a 
covenant ;  and,  2d,  a  change  of  inward  condition  or  nature.  The 
change  of  relation  is  represented  by  justification  ;  the  change  of 
nature  is  represented  by  the  term  regeneration.  Regeneeation 
is  an  act  of  God  originating  by  a  new  creation  a  new  spiritual  life 
in  the  heart  of  the  subject.  The  first  and  instant  act  of  that  new 
creature,  consequent  upon  his  regeneration,  is  faith,  or  a  believing, 
trusting  embrace  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ.  Upon  the 
exercise  of  faith  by  the  regenerated  subject,  justification  is  the 
instant  act  of  God,  on  the  ground  of  that  perfect  righteousness 
which  the  sinner's  faith  has  apprehended,  declaring  him  to  be  free 
from  all  condemnation,  and  to  have  a  legal  right  to  the  relations 
and  benefits  secured  by  the  covenant  which  Christ  has  fulfilled  in 
his  behalf.  Sanctification  is  the  progressive  growth  toward  the 
perfected  maturity  of  that  new  life  which  was  implanted  in  re- 
generation. Adoption  presents  the  new  creature  in  his  new  rela- 
tion ;  his  new  relations  entered  upon  with  a  congenial  heart,  i\nd 
his  new  life  developing  in  a  congenial  home,  and  surrounded  with 
those  relations  which  foster  its  growth,  and  crown  it  with  bless- 


400  ADOPTION. 

edness.  Justification  is  wholly  forensic,  and  concerns  only  rela- 
tions, immunities,  and  rights.  Regeneration  and  sanctification  are 
wholly  spiritual  and  moral,  and  concern  only  inherent  qualities 
and  states.  Adoption  comprehends  the  complex  condition  of 
the  believer  as  at  once  the  subject  of  both. 

3.  What  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  involved  in  being  a 
child  of  God  by  this  adoption  f 

1st.  Derivation  of  natm'e  from  God,  John  i.,  13  ;  James  i., 
18  ;  1  John  v.,  18. 

2d.  Being  born  again  in  the  image  of  God,  bearing  his  like- 
ness, Rom.  viil,  29  ;  2  Cor.  iii.,  18  ;  Col.  iii.,  10  ;   2  Pet.  i.,  4. 

3d.  Bearing  his  name,  1  John  iii.,  1  ;  Rev.  ii.  17 ;  iii.,  12. 

4th.  Being  the  objects  of  his  peculiar  love,  John  xvii.,  23  ; 
Rom.  v.,  5-8  ;  Titus  iii.,  4  ;  1  John  iv.,  7-11. 

5th.  The  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  of  his  Son,  (Gal.  iv,,  5,  6,) 
who  forms  in  us  a  filial  spirit,  or  a  spirit 'becoming  the  children 
of  God,  obedient,  1  Pet.  i.,  14 ;  2  John  6  ;  free  from  sense  of 
guilt,  legal  bondage,  fear  of  death,  Rom.  viii.,  15,  21  ;  2  Cor.  iii., 
17  ;  Gal.  v.,  1  ;  Heb.  ii.,  15  ;  1  John  v.,  14  ;  and  elevated  with 
a  holy  boldness  and  royal  dignity,  Heb.  x.,  19,  22 ;  1  Pet.  ii., 
9  ;  iv.,  14. 

6th.  Present  protection,  consolations,  and  abundant  provisions, 
Ps.  cxxv.,  2  ;  Isa.  Ixvi.,  13  ;  Luke  xii.,  27-32  ;  John  xiv.,  18  ;  1 
Cor.  iii.,  21,  23  ;  2  Cor.  i.,  4. 

7th.  Present  fatherly  chastisements  for  our  good,  including 
both  spiritual  and  temporal  afilictions,  Ps.  Ii.,  11,  12  ;  Heb. 
xii.,  5-11. 

8th.  The  certain  inheritance  of  the  riches  of  our  Father's 
glory,  as  heirs  with  God  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  (Rom. 
viii.,  17 ;  James  ii.,  5 ;  1  Pet.  i.,  4  ;  iii.,  7 ;  including  the  exalta- 
tion of  our  bodies  to  fellowship  with  him,  Rom.  viii.,  23  ;  Phil, 
iii.,  21. 

4.  What  relation  do  the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity  sustain 
to  this  adoption,  and  into  what  relation  does  it  introduce  us  to 
each  of  them  severally  ? 

This  adoption  proceeds  according  to  the  eternal  pursose  of  the 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  401 

Father,  upon  the  merits  of  the  Son,  and  by  the  efficient  agency 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  John  i.,  12,  13  ;  Gal.  iv.,  5,  6  ;  Titus  iii.,  5, 
6.  By  it  God  the  Father  is  made  our  Father.  The  incarnate 
God-man  is  made  our  elder  brother,  and  we  are  made,  (1.)  like 
him  ;  (2.)  intimately  associated  with  him  in  community  of  life 
standing  relations  and  privileges  ;  (3.)  joint  heirs  with  him  of 
his  glory,  Kom.  viii.,  17,  29  ;  Heb.  ii.,  17 ;  iv.,  15.  The  Holy 
Ghost  is  our  indweller,  teacher,  guide,  advocate,  comforter,  and 
sanctifier.  All  believers,  being  subjects  of  the  same  adoption,  are 
brethren,  Eph.  iii.,  6  ;  1  John  iii.,  14  ;  v.,  1. 

26 


CHAPTER     XXXII. 

SAN  C  TIF  IC  AT  ION. 

1.  What  sense  do  the  words  dyiog,  holy,  and  dyid^etv^  to  sanc- 
tify, bear  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

The  verb  dyid^ecv  is  used  in  two  distinct  senses  in  the  New 
Testament : 

1st.  To  make  clean  physically,  or  morally.  (1.)  Ceremonial 
purification,  Heb.  ix.,  13.  (2.)  To  render  clean  in  a  moral  sense, 
1  Cor.  vi.,  11  ;  Heb.  xiii.,  12.  Hence  the  phrase  "  them  that  are 
sanctified"  is  convertible  with  believers,  1  Cor.  i.,  2. 

2d.  To  set  apart  from  a  common  to  a  sacred  use,  to  devote, 
(1.)  spoken  of  things.  Matt,  xxiii.,  17  ;  (2.)  spoken  of  persons, 
John  X.,  36  ;  (3.)  to  regard  and  venerate  as  holy.  Matt,  vi.,  9  ; 
1  Pet.  iii.,  15. 

"Ayiog,  as  an  adjective,  pure,  holy,  as  a  noun,  saint,  is  also  used 
in  two  distinct  senses,  corresponding  to  those  of  the  verb. 

1st,  Pure,  clean  ;  (1.)  ceremonially,  (2.)  morally,  Eph.  i.,  4, 
(3.)  as  a  noun,  saints,  sanctified  ones,  Rom.  i.  7  ;  viii.,  27. 

2d.  Consecrated,  devoted.  Matt,  iv.,  5  ;  Acts  vi.,  13  ;  xxi., 
28 ;  Heb.  ix.,  3.  This  word  is  also  used  in  ascriptions  of 
praise  to  God,  John  xvii.,  11  ;  Rev.  iv.,  8. 

2.  What  are  the  different\iews  entertained  as  to  the  nature 
of  sanctification  ? 

Pelagians  denying  original  sin  and  the  moral  inability  of  man, 
and  holding  that  sin  can  be  predicated  only  of  acts  of  the  will, 
and  not  of  inherent  states  or  dispositions,  consequently  regard 
sanctification  as  nothing  more  than  a  moral  reformation  of  life 
and  habits,  wrought  under  the  influence  of  the  truth  in  the  natu- 
ral strength  of  the  sinner  himself. 


I 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  403 

The  advocates  of  the  "exercise  scheme"  hold  that  we  can  find 
nothing  in  the  soul  than  the  agent  and  his  exercises.  Regenera- 
tion, therefore,  is  nothing  more  than  the  cessation  from  a  series 
of  unholy,  and  the  inauguration  of  a  scries  of  holy  exercises  ; 
and  sanctification  the  maintenance  of  those  holy 'exercises.  One 
party,  represented  by  Dr.  Emmons,  say  that  God  immediately 
effects  these  holy  exercises.  Another  party,  represented  by  Dr. 
Taylor,  of  New  Haven,  held  that  the  man  himself  determines 
the  character  of  his  own  exercises  by  choosing  God  as  his  chief 
good  ;  the  Holy  Spirit  in  some  unexplained  way  assisting.  See 
above,  Chap.  XXVI.,  questions  5  and  6. 

3d.  Many  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  distinguished 
from  the  evangelical  party  in  that  church,  hold  that  a  man  con- 
forming to  the  church,  which  is  the  condition  of  the  Gospel  cove- 
nant, is  introduced  to  all  the  benefits  of  that  covenant,  and  in 
the  decent  performance  of  relative  duties  and  observance  of  the 
sacraments,  is  enabled  to  do  all  that  is  now  required  of  him,  and 
to  attain  to  all  the  moral  good  now  possible  or  desirable. 

4th.  The  orthodox  doctrine  is  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  his 
constant  influences  upon  the  whole  soul  in  all  its  faculties, 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth,  nourishes,  exercises, 
and  develops  those  holy  principles  and  dispositions  which  he  im- 
planted in  the  new  birth,  until  by  a  constant  progress,  all  sinful 
dispositions  being  mortified  and  extirpated,  and  all  holy  disposi- 
tions being  fully  matured,  the  subject  of  this  gi-ace  is  brought 
immediately  upon  death  to  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  perfect 
manhood  in  Christ. 

Con.  Faith,  Chap.  XIII. ;  L.  Cat.,  question  75 ;  S.  Cat., 
question  35. 

3.  How  can  it  he  shown  that  sanctification  involves  more  than 
mere  reformation  ? 

See  above.  Chap.  XXVI.,  question  12. 

4,  How  may  it  be  shoion  that  it  involves  more  than  the  pro- 
duction of  holy  exercises  '( 

See  above.  Chap.  XXVI.,  questions  7-10. 

Besides  the  arguments  presented  in  the  chapter  above  referred 


404  SANCTIFICATION. 

to,  this  truth  is  established  by  the  evidence  of  those  passages  of 
Scripture  which  distinguish  between  the  change  wrought  in  the 
heart  and  the  effects  of  that  change  in  the  actions,  Matt,  xii., 
33-35  ;  Luke  vi.,  43-45. 

5.  What  relation  does  sanctification  sustain  to  regeneration  ? 

Regeneration  is  the  creative  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  implant- 
ing a  new  principle  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul.  Conversion  is 
the  first  exercise  of  that  new  gracious  principle,  in  the  spontane- 
ous turning  of  the  new  born  sinner  to  God.  Sanctification  is  the 
sustaining  and  developing  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  bringing  all 
the  faculties  of  the  soul  more  and  more  perfectly  under  the  puri- 
fying and  regulating  influence  of  the  implanted  princinle  of  spir- 
itual life. 

6.  What  is  the  relation  which  justification  and  sanctification 
sustain  to  each  other  ? 

In  the  order  of  nature,  regeneration  precedes  justification,  al- 
though as  to  time  they  are  always  necessarily  cotemporaneous. 
The  instant  God  regenerates  a  sinner  he  acts  faith  in  Christ. 
The  instant  he  acts  faith  in  Christ  he  is  justified,  and  sanctifica- 
tion, w^hich  is  the  work  of  carrying  on  and  perfecting  that  which 
is  begun  in  regeneration,  is  accomplished  under  the  conditions  of 
those  new  relations  into  which  he  is  introduced  by  justification. 
In  justification  we  are  delivered  from  all  the  penal  consequences 
of  sin,  and  brought  into  such  a  state  of  reconciliation  with  God, 
and  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  we  are  emancipated  from 
the  bondage  of  legal  fear,  and  endued  with  that  spirit  of  filial  con- 
fidence and  love  which  is  the  essential  principle  of  all  acceptable 
obedience.  Our  justification,  moreover,  proceeds  on  the  ground 
of  our  federal  union  with  Christ  by  faith,  which  is  the  basis  of 
that  vital  and  spiritual  union  of  the  soul  with  him  from  whom 
our  sanctification  flows.     See  above.  Chap.  XXXI.,  question  2. 

7.  How  can  it  be  shown  that  this  work  extends  to  the  whole 
man,  the  understanding,  ivill,  and  affections  ? 

The  soul  is  a  unit,  the  same  single  agent  alike,  thinking, 
feeling,  and  willing.     A  man  can  not  love  that  loveliness  which 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  405 

he  does  not  perceive,  nor  can  he  perceive  that  beauty,  whether 
moral  or  natural,  which  is  uncongenial  to  his  own  heart.  His 
whole  nature  is  morally  depraved,  1st,  blind  or  insensible  to  spir- 
itual beauty  ;  2d,  averse,  in  the  reigning  dispositions  of  the  will, 
to  moral  right,  and  therefore  disobedient.  The  order  in  which 
the  faculties  act  is  as  follows  :  The  intellect  perceives  the  quali- 
ties of  the  object  concerning  which  the  mind  is  engaged  ;  the 
heart  loves  those  qualities  which  arc  congenial  to  it  ;  the  will 
chooses  that  which  is  loved. 

This  is  proved,  1st,  by  experience.  As  the  heart  becomes 
more  depraved  the  mind  becomes  more  insensible  to  spiritual 
light.  On  the  other  hand,  as  the  eyes  behold  more  and  more 
clearly  the  beauty  of  the  truth,  the  more  lively  become  the  affec- 
tions, and  the  more  obedient  the  will.  2d.  From  the  testimony 
of  Scripture.  By  nature  the  whole  man  is  depraved.  The  un- 
derstanding darkened,  as  well  as  the  affections  and  Avill  perverted, 
Eph.  iv.,  18. 

If  this  be  so,  it  is  evident  that  sanctification  must  also  be 
effected  throughout  the  entire  nature.  1st.  From  the  necessity 
of  the  case.  2d.  From  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  Kom.  vi.,  13  ; 
2  Cor.  iv.,  6  ;  Eph.  i.,  18  ;  Col.  iii.,  10 ;  1  Thess.  v.,  23  ;  1  John 
iv.,  7. 

8.  In  lohat  sense  is  the  body  sanctified  ? 

1st.  As  consecrated,  (1.)  as  being  the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  1  Cor.  vi.,  19  ;  (2.)  hence  as  being  a  member  of  Christ,  1 
Cor.  vi.,  15.  2d.  As  sanctified,  since  they  are  integral  parts  of 
our  persons,  their  instincts  and  appetites  act  immediately  upon 
the  passions  of  our  souls,  and  consequently  these  must  be  brought 
subject  to  the  control  of  the  sanctified  soul,  and  all  its  members, 
as  organs  of  the  soul,  made  instruments  of  righteousness  unto 
God,  Eom.,  vi.,  13  ;  1  Thess.  iv.,  4.  3d.  It  will  be  made  like 
Christ's  glorified  body,  1  Cor.  xv.,  44  ;  Phil,  iii.,  21. 

9.  To  lohom  is  the  work  of  sanctification  referred  in  Styrip- 
ture  ? 

1st.  To  the  Father,  1  Thess.  vi.,  23  ;  Heb.  xiii.,  21.  2d.  To 
the  Son,  Eph.  v.,  25,  26  ;  Titus  ii.,  14.  3d.  To  the  Holy  Ghost, 
1  Cor.  vi.,  11  ;  2  Thess.  ii.,  13. 


406  SANCTIFICATION. 

In  all  external  actions  the  three  Persons  of  the  trinity  are  al- 
ways represented  as  concurring,  the  Father  working  through  the 
Son  and  Spirit,  and  the  Son  through  the  Spirit.  Hence  the  work 
of  sanctification  is  with  special  prominence  attributed  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  since  he  is  the  immediate  agent  therein,  and  since 
this  is  his  special  office  work  in  the  plan  of  redemption. 

10.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  agency  of  the 
truth  in  the  ivork  of  sanctification  ? 

The  whole  process  of  sanctification  consists  in  the  develop- 
ment and  confirmation  of  the  new  princij)le  of  spiritual  life  im- 
planted in  the  soul  in  regeneration,  conducted  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  perfect  conformity  to,  and  through  the  operation  of  the  laws 
and  habits  of  action  natural  to  the  soul  as  an  intelligent,  moral 
and  free  agent.  Like  the  natural  faculties  both  of  body  and  mind, 
and  the  natural  habits  which  modify  the  actions  of  those  facul- 
ties, so  Christian  graces,  or  spiritual  habits,  are  developed  by  ex- 
ercise ;  the  truths  of  the  gospel  being  the  objects  upon  which 
these  graces  act,  and  by  which  they  are  both  excited  and  directed. 
Thus  the  divine  loveliness  of  God  presented  in  the  truth,  which  is 
his  image,  is  the  object  of  our  complacent  love  ;  his  goodness  of 
our  gratitude  ;  his  promises  of  our  trust ;  his  judgments  of  our 
wholesome  awe,  and  his  commandments  variously  exercise  us  in 
the  thousand  forms  of  filial  obedience,  John  xvii.,  19  ;  1  Pet.  i., 
22  ;  ii.,  2  ;  2  Pet.  i.,  4  ;  James  i.,  18. 

11.  What  efficiency  do  the  Scriptures  ascribe  in  this  vjorJ:  to 
the  sacraments  ? 

There  are  three  views  entertained  on  this  subject  by  theo- 
logians— 

1st.  The  lowest  view  is,  that  the  sacraments  simply,  as  sym- 
bols, present  the  truth  in  a  lively  manner  to  the  eye,  and  are 
effective  thus  only  as  a  form  of  presenting  the  gospel  objectively. 

2d,  The  opinion  occupying  the  opposite  extreme  is,  that  they, 
of  their  own  proper  efficiency,  convey  sanctifying  grace  ex  opere 
operato,  "  because  they  convey  grace  by  the  virtue  of  the  sacra- 
mental action  itself,  instituted  by  God  for  tliis  very  end,  and  not 
through  the  merit  either  of  the  agent  (priest)  or  the  receiver." — 
Bellarmine  de  sac,  2,  1. 


APPLICATION   OF   EEDEMPTION.  407 

3d.  The  true  view  is,  "  that  the  sacraments  are  efficacious 
means  of  grace,  not  merely  exhibiting  but  actually  conferring 
upon  those  who  worthily  receive  them  the  benefits  which  they 
represent ;"  yet  this  efficacy  does  not  reside  properly  in  them, 
but  accompanies  their  proper  use  in  virtue  of  the  divine  institu- 
tion and  promise,  through  the  accompaning  agency  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  as  suspended  upon  the  exercise  of  faith  upon  the  part 
of  the  recipient,  which  faith  is  at  once  the  condition  and  the  in- 
strument of  the  reception  of  the  benefit.  Matt,  iii.,  11 ;  Acts  ii., 
41 ;  X.,  47  ;  Rom.  vi.,  3  ;  1  Cor.  xii.,  13  ;  Titus  iii.,  5  ;  1  Pet., 
iii.,  21. 

12.  What  office  do  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  faith  in  sancti- 
fication  ? 

Faith  is  the  first  grace  in  order  exercised  by  the  soul  conse- 
quent upon  regeneration,  and  the  root  of  all  other  graces  in  jDrin- 
ciple,  Acts  XV.,  9  ;  xxvi.,  18.  It  is  instrumental  in  securing 
sanctification,  therefore — 

1st,  By  securing  the  change  of  the  believer's  relation  to  God 
and  to  the  law,  as  a  condition  of  life  and  favor.  See  above,  ques- 
tion 6. 

2d.  By  securing  his  union  with  Christ,  1  Cor.  xiii.  ;  Gal.  ii., 
20  ;  Col.  iii.,  3. 

3d.  It  is  sanctifying  in  its  own  nature,  since,  in  its  widest 
sense,  faith  is  that  spiritual  state  of  the  soul  in  which  it  holds 
living  active  communion  with  spiritual  truth. 

13.  What,  according  to  Scripture,  is  necessary  to  constitute 
a  good  loork  ? 

1st.  That  it  should  spring  from  a  right  motive,  i.  e.,  love 
for  God's  character,  regard  for  his  authority,  and  zeal  for  his 
glory,  reigning  as  a  permanent  and  controlling  principle  in  the 
soul. 

2d.  That  it  be  in  accordance  with  his  revealed  law,  Deut.  xii., 
32  ;  Isa.  i.,  11,  12  ;  Col.  ii.,  16-23. 

14.  What  is  the  Popish  docti-ine  as  to  "the  counsels"  of  Christ, 
which  are  not  included  in  the  jjositive  precepts  of  the  law  ? 

The  positive  commands  of  Christ  are  represented  as  binding 


408  SANCTIFICATION. 

on  all  classes  of  Christians  alike,  and  their  observance  necessary 
in  order  to  salvation.  His  counsels,  on  the  other  hand,  are  bind- 
ing only  upon  those  who,  seeking  a  higher  degree  of  perfection 
and  a  more  excellent  reward,  voluntarily  assume  them.  These 
are  such  as  celibacy,  voluntary  poverty,  etc.,  and  obedience  to 
rule,  (monastic.) — Bellarmine  de  Monarchis,  Cap.  VII. 
The  wickedness  of  this  distinction  is  evident — 
1st.  Because;  Christ  demands  the  entire  consecration  of  every 
Christian  :  after  we  have  done  all  we  are  only  unprofitable  ser- 
vants.    Works  of  supererogation,  therefore,  are  impossible. 

2d.  All  such  will  worship  is  declared  abhorent  to  God,  Col. 
ii.,  18-23  ;  1  Tim.  iv.,  3. 

15.  What  Judgment  is  to  be  formed  of  the  good  luorhs  of  un- 
renewed men  '^ 

Unrenewed  men  retain  some  dispositions  and  affections  in 
themselves  relatively  good,  and  they  do  many  things  in  themselves 
right,  and  according  to  the  letter  of  Grod's  law.     Yet — 

1st.  As  to  his  person,  every  unrenewed  man  is  under  God's 
wrath  and  curse,  and  consequently  can  do  nothing  pleasing  to 
him.  The  rebel  in  arms  is  in  everything  a  rebel  until  he  submits 
and  returns  to  his  allegiance. 

2d.  Love  for  God  and  regard  to  his  authority  are  never  his 
supreme  motive  in  any  of  his  acts.  Thus  while  many  of  his  ac- 
tions are  civilly  good  as  respects  his  fellow-men,  none  of  them  can 
be  spiritually  good  as  it  respects  God.  There  is  an  obvious  dis- 
tinction between  an  act  viewed  in  itself,  and  viewed  in  connection 
with  its  agent.  The  sinner,  previous  to  justification  and  renewal, 
is  a  rebel ;  each  one  of  his  acts  is  the  act  of  a  rebel,  though  as 
considered  in  itself  any  single  act  may  be  either  good,  bad,  or 
indifferent, 

16.  In  lohat  sense  are  good  works  necessary  for  salvation  ? 

As  the  necessary  and  invariable  fruits  of  both  the  change  of 
relation  accomplished  in  justification,  and  of  the  change  of  nature 
accomplished  in  regeneration,  though  never  as  the  meritorious 
grounds  or  conditions  of  our  salvation. 

This  necessity  results,  1st,  from  the  holiness  of  God  ;  2d,  from 
his  eternal  purpose,  Eph.  i.,  4  ;  ii.,  10  ;  3d,  from  the  design  and 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  409 

redemptive  efficacy  of  Christ's  death,  Eph.  v.,  25-27  ;  4th,  from 
the  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ,  and  the  energy  of  his  in- 
dwelling Spirit,  John  xv.,  5  ;  Gal.  v.,  22 ;  5th,  from  the  very 
nature  of  faith,  which  first  leads  to  and  then  works  by  love,  Gal. 
v.,  6  ;  6th,  from  the  command  of  God,  1  Thes.  iv.,  6  ;  1  Pet.  i., 
15  ;  7th,  from  the  nature  of  heaven,  Kev.  xxi.,  27. 

17.  What  is  the  theory  of  the  Antinomians  upon  this  subject  ? 

Antinomians  are,  as  their  name  signifies,  those  who  deny  that 
Christians  are  bound  to  obey  the  law.  They  argue  that,  as  Christ 
has  in  our  place  fulfilled  both  the  preceptive  and  the  penal  de- 
partments of  God's  law,  his  people  must  be  delivered  from  all 
obligation  to  observe  it,  either  as  a  rule  of  duty  or  as  a  condition 
of  salvation. 

Paul,  in  the  6th  chapter  of  Romans,  declares  that  this  damna- 
ble heresy  was  charged  as  a  legitimate  consequent  upon  his  doc- 
trine in  that  day.  He  not  only  repudiates  the  charge,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  affirms  that  free  justification  through  an  imputed 
righteousness,  without  the  merit  of  works,  is  the  only  possible 
condition  in  which  the  sinner  can  learn  to  bring  forth  holy  works 
as  the  fruits  of  filial  love.  The  very  purpose  of  Christ  was  to  re- 
deem to  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works,  and  this 
he  accomplished  by  delivering  them  from  the  federal  bondage  of 
the  law,  in  order  to  render  them  capable  as  the  Lord's  freedmen 
of  moral  conformity  to  it. 

18.  What  are  the  different  senses  lohich  have  been  applied  to 
the  term  "  merit  ?" 

It  has  been  technically  used  in  two  different  senses.  1st. 
Strictly,  to  designate  the  common  quality  of  all  services  to  which 
a  reward  is  due,  ex  justioid,  on  account  of  their  intrinsic  value 
and  dignity.  2d.  Improperly,  it  was  used  by  the  fathers  as 
equivalent  to  that  which  results  in  or  attains  to  a  reward  or 
consequent,  without  specifying  the  ground  or  virtue  on  account  of 
which  it  is  secured. — Turrettin,  L.  XVII.,  Qurestio  5. 

19.  What  distinction  docs  the  Romish  Church  design  to  sig- 
nalize by  the  terms  "  merit  of  condignity"  and  the  "  merit  of  con- 
gruity  ?" 


410  SANCTIFICATION, 

The  "  merit  of  condignity"  they  teach  attaches  only  to  works 
wrought  subsequently  to  regeneration  by  the  aid  of  divine  grace, 
and  is  that  degree  of  merit  that  intrinsically,  and  in  the  way  of 
equal  right,  not  by  mere  promise  or  covenant,  deserves  the  reward 
it  attains  at  God's  hands.  The  "  merit  of  congruity"  they  teach 
attaches  to  those  good  dispositions  or  works  which  a  man  may, 
previously  to  regeneration,  realize  without  the  aid  of  divine  grace, 
and  which  makes  it  congruous  or  specially  fitting  for  God  to  re- 
ward the  agent  by  infusing  grace  into  his  heart. 

It  is  extremely  difficult  to  detennine  the  exact  position  of 
the  Romish  Church  on  this  subject,  since  different  schools  of  the- 
ologians in  her  midst  differ  widely,  and  the  decisions  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  are  studiously  ambiguous.  The  general  belief  ap- 
pears to  be  that  ability  to  perform  good  works  springs  from  grace 
infused  into  the  sinner's  heart  for  Christ's  sake,  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  sacraments,  but  that  afterwards  these  good 
works  merit,  that  is,  lay  for  us  the  foundation  of  a  just  claim  to 
salvation  and  glory.  Some  say,  like  Bellarmine'de  justific,  5,  1, 
and  4,  7,  that  this  merit  attaches  to  the  good  works  of  Christians 
intrinsically,  as  well  as  in  consequence  of  God's  promise  ;  others 
that  these  works  deserve  the  reward  only  because  God  has  prom- 
ised the  reward  on  the  condition  of  the  work. — Coun.  Trent,  Sess. 
VI.,  Cap.  XVI.,  and  canons  24  and  32. 

20.  What  is  necessary  that  a  worlc  should  be  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term  meritorious  ? 

Turrettin  makes  five  conditions  necessary  to  that  end.  1st. 
That  the  work  be  not  of  debt,  or  which  the  worker  was  under 
obligation  to  render,  Luke  xvii.,  10.  2d.  That  it  is  our  own, 
i.  e.,  effected  by  our  own  natural  energy.  3d.  That  it  be  perfect. 
4th.  That  it  be  equal  to  the  reward  merited.  5th.  That  the 
reward  be  of  justice  due  to  such  an  act. — Turrettin,  L.  XVII.. 
Quaestio  5. 

According  to  this  definition,  it  is  evident,  from  the  absolute 
dependence  and  obligation  of  the  creature,  that  he  can  never  merit 
any  reward  for  wliatever  obedience  he  may  render  to  the  commands 
of  his 'Creator.  1st.  Because  all  the  strength  he  works  with  is 
freely  given  by  God.     2d.  All  the  service  he  can  render  is  owed 


APPLICATION   OF    REDEMPTION.  411 

to  Grod.     3d.  NotMng  he  can  do  can  equal  the  reward  of  God's 
favor  and  eternal  blessedness. 

Under  the  covenant  of  works,  God  graciously  promised  to  re- 
ward the  obedience  of  Adam  with  eternal  life.  This  was  a  reward, 
however,  not  of  merit,  but  of  free  grace  and  promise.  Every- 
thing under  that  constitution  depended  upon  the  standing  of  the 
person  before  God.  As  long  as  Adam  continued  without  sin,  his 
services  were  accepted  and  rewarded  according  to  promise.  But 
from  tlie  moment  he  forfeited  the  promise,  and  lost  his  standing 
before  God,  no  work  of  his,  no  matter  of  what  character,  could 
merit  any  thing  at  the  hand  of  God. 

21.  Hoio  can  it  he  proved  that  our  good  works,  even  after  the 
restoration  of  our  person  to  God's  favor  by  justification,  do  not 
merit  heaven  ? 

1st.  Justification  proceeds  upon  the  infinite  merits  of  Christ, 
and  on  that  foundation  rests  our  title  to  the  favor  of  God  and 
all  the  infinite  consequences  thereof.  Christ's  merit,  lying  at  the 
foundation  and  embracing  all,  excludes  the  possibility  of  our 
meriting  any  thing.  2d.  The  law  demands  perfect  obedience, 
Kom.  iii.,  23 ;  Gal.  v.,  3.  3d.  We  are  saved  by  grace,  not  by 
works,  Eph.  ii.,  8,  9.  4th.  All  good  dispositions  are  graces 
or  gifts  of  God,  1  Cor.  xv.,  10;  Phil,  ii.,  13;  1  Thess.  ii.,  13. 
5th.  Eternal  life  itself  is  declared  to  be  the  gift  of  God,  1  John 
v.,  11. 

22.  WTiat  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  good  toorks 
of  believers,  and  the  rewards  promised  to  them  ? 

Both  the  work  and  its  reward  are  branches  from  the  same  sja- 
cious  root.  The  covenant  of  grace  provides  alike  for  the  infusion 
of  grace  in  the  heart,  the  exercise  of  this  grace  in  the  life,  and  the 
rewards  of  that  grace  so  exercised.  It  is  all  of  grace,  grace  for 
grace,  grace  added  to  grace,  presented  to  us  in  this  form  of  a  re- 
ward : — 1st.  That  it  may  act  upon  us  as  a  rational  motive  to  dili- 
gent obedience.  2d.  To  mark  that  the  gift  of  heaven  and  eternal 
blessedness  is  an  act  of  strict  legal  justice  (1.)  in  respec-t  to  the 
perfect  merits  of  Christ,  (2.)  in  respect  to  God's  fiiithful  adherence 
to  his  own  free  promise,  1  John  i.,  9.  3d.  To  indicate  that  the 
heavenly  reward  stands  in  a  certain  gracious  proportion  to  the 


412  PERFECTIONISM. 

grace  given  in  the  obedience  on  earth  ;  (1.)  because  God  so  -wills 
it,  Matt,  xvi.,  27  ;  1  Cor.  iii.,  8  ;  (2.)  because  the  grace  given  on 
earth  prepares  the  soul  to  receive  the  grace  given  in  heaven,  2 
Cor.  iv.,  17. 

is   perfect   sanctification    attainable   by  believers  in 
Christ  in  this  life  ? 

23.  What,  in  general  terms,  is  j^erfectionism  ? 

The  various  theories  of  perfectionism  all  agree  in  maintain- 
ing that  it  is  possible  for  a  child  of  God  in  this  world  to  be- 
come, 1st,  perfectly  free  from  sin,  2d,  conformed  to  the  law  under 
which  they  now  live.  They  differ  very  variously  among  them- 
selves, however,  1st,  as  to  what  sin  is  ;  2d,  as  to  what  law  we  are 
now  obliged  to  fulfill  ;  3d,  as  to  the  means  whereby  this  perfec- 
tion may  be  attained,  whether  by  nature  or  by  grace. 

24.  How  does  the  Pelagian  theory  of  the  nature  of  man  and 
of  grace  lead  to  perfectionism  ? 

Pelagians  maintain,  1st,  as  to  man's  nature,  that  it  was  not 
radically  corrupted  by  the  fall,  and  that  every  man  possesses  suf- 
ticient  power  to  fulfill  all  the  duties  required  of  him,  since  God 
can  not  in  justice  demand  that  which  man  has  not  full  power  to 
do.  2d.  As  to  God's  grace,  that  it  is  nothing  more  than  the  fav- 
orable constitution  of  our  own  minds,  and  the  influence  exerted 
on  them  by  the  truth  he  has  revealed  to  us,  and  the  propi- 
tious circumstances  in  which  he  has  placed  us.  Thus,  in  the 
Christian  church,  and  with  the  Christian  revelation,  men  are,  in 
fact,  placed  in  the  most  propitious  circumstances  possible  to  per- 
suade them  to  perform  their  duties.  It  follows  from  this  system 
directly  that  every  one  who  wishes  may  certainly  attain  perfec- 
tion by  using  his  natural  powers  and  advantages  of  position  with 
sufficient  care. — Wigger's  Historical  view  of  Augustinianism  and 
Pelagianism,  quoted  by  Dr.  G.  Peck. 

25.  What,  according  to  the  Pelagian  theory,  is  the  nature  of 
the  sin  from  lohich  man  may  he  perfectly  free  ;  ivhat  the  law  ivhich 
he  may  perfectly  fulfil,  and  ichat  are  the  means  by  ivhich  this 
perfection  may  he  attained  ? 

They  deny  original  and  inherent  corruption  of  nature,  and 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION,  413 

hold  that  sin  is  only  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law,  from 
which  any  man  may  abstain  if  he  will. 

As  to  the  laiu  which  man  in  his  present  state  may  perfectly 
fulfill,  they  hold  that  it  is  the  single  and  original  law  of  God,  the 
requirements  of  which,  however,  in  the  case  of  every  individual 
subject,  arc  measured  by  the  individual's  ability,  and  opportuni- 
ties of  knowledge.  As  to  the  meo.ns  whereby  this  perfection  may 
be  attained,  they  maintain  the  plenary  ability  of  man's  natural 
will  to  discharge  all  the  obligations  resting  upon  him,  and  they 
admit  the  assistance  of  God's  grace  only  in  the  sense  of  the  influ- 
ence of  the  truth,  and  other  propitious  circumstances  in  persuad- 
ing man  to  use  his  own  power.  Thus  the  means  of  perfect  sanc- 
tification  are,  1st,  man's  own  volition,  2d,  as  helped  by  the  study 
of  the  Bible,  prudent  avoidance  of  temptation,  etc. 

26.  In  what  sense  do  Romanists  hold  the  doctrine  of  per- 
fection ? 

The  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent  upon  this  subject,  as 
upon  all  critical  points,  are  studiously  ambiguous.  They  lay 
down  the  principle  that  the  law  must  be  possible  to  them  upon 
whom  it  is  binding,  since  God  does  not  command  impossibilities. 
Men  justified  (sanctified)  may  by  the  grace  of  God  dwelling  in 
them  satisfy  the  divine  law,  pro  hujus  vitce  statu,  i.  e.,  as  graci- 
ously for  Christ's  sake  adjusted  to  our  present  capacities.  They 
confess,  nevertheless,  that  the  just  may  fall  into  venial  sins  every 
day,  and  that  while  in  the  flesh  no  man  can  live  entirely  without 
sin,  (unless  by  a  special  privilege  of  God)  ;  yet  that  in  this  life 
the  renewed  can  fully  keep  the  divine  law  ;  and  even  by  the  ob- 
servance of  the  evangelical  counsels  do  more  than  is  commanded  ; 
and  thus,  as  many  saints  have  actually  done,  lay  up  a  fund  of 
supererogatory  merit. — Council  of  Trent,  Session  VI.  Compare 
Chapters  XI.  and  XVI.,  and  canons  18,  23,  and  32.  See  above, 
question  14. 

27.  I7i  what  sense  do  they  hold  that  the  renewed  may,  in  this 
life  live  without  sin  ;  in  what  sense  fully  satisfy  the  laio  ;  and 
hy  the  use  of  what  means  do  they  teach  that  this  ^icrfection  may  he 
attained  ? 

As  to  sin,  they  hold  the  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial 


414  PERFECTIONISM. 

sins,  and  that  the  concupiscence  that  remains  in  the  bosom  of  the 
renewed,  as  the  result  of  original  and  the  fuel  of  actual  sin,  is  not 
itself  sin,  since  sin  consists  only  in  the  consent  of  the  will  to  the 
impulse  of  concupiscence.  In  accordance  with  these  views  they  hold 
that  a  Christian  in  this  life  may  live  without  committing  mortal 
sins,  but  that  he  never  can  be  free  from  the  inward  movements 
of  concupiscence,  nor  from  liability  to  fall  through  ignorance,  in- 
attention, or  passion  into  venial  sins. 

As  to  the  law,  which  a  believer  in  this  life  may  fully  satisfy, 
they  hold  that  as  God  is  just  and  can  not  demand  of  us  what  is 
impossible,  his  law  is  graciously  adjusted  to  our  present  ca- 
pacities, as  assisted  by  grace,  and  that  it  is  this  law  pro  hujus 
vitce  statu,  which  we  may  fulfill. 

As  to  the  means  whereby  this  perfection  may  be  attained,  they 
hold  that  divine  grace  precedes,  accompanies,  and  follows  all  of 
our  good  works,  which  divine  grace  is  to  be  sought  through  those 
sacramental  and  priestly  channels  which  Christ  has  institued  in 
his  church,  and  especially  in  the  observance  of  works  of  prayer, 
fasting,  and  alms  deeds,  and  the  acquisition  of  supererogatory 
merit  by  the  fulfillment  of  the  counsels  of  Christ  to  chastity, 
obedience,  and  voluntary  poverty. — Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  XIV., 
Chapter  V.,  Sess.  VI.,  Chapters  XI.  and  XII.,  Sess.  V.,  canon 
5  ;  Cat.  Kom.,  Part  II.,  Chapter  II.,  question  32,  and  Part 
II.,  Chapter  V.,  question  59,  and  Part  III.,  Chapter  X.,  ques- 
tions 5-10. 

28.  In  ivhat  form  was  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  early  Ar- 
minians  ? 

Arminius  declared  that  his  mind  was  in  suspense  upon  this 
subject,  (Writings  of  Arminius,  translated  by  Nichols,  Vol.  I.,  p. 
256.)  His  immediate  successors  in  the  theological  leadership  of 
the  remonstrant  party,  developed  a  theory  of  perfectionism  ap- 
parently identical  with  that  taught  by  Wesley,  and  professed  by 
his  disciples.  "A  man  can,  with  the  assistance  of  divine  grace, 
keep  all  the  commandments  of  God  perfectly,  according  to  the 
gospel  or  covenant  of  grace.  The  highest  evangelical  perfection, 
(for  we  are  not  teaching  a  legal  perfection,  which  includes  sin- 
lessness  entire  in  all  respects  and  in  the  highest  degree,  and  ex- 
cludes all  imperfection  and  infirmity,  for  this  we  believe  to  be 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  415 

impossible,)  embraces  two  things,  1st,  a  perfection  proportioned 
to  the  powers  of  each  individual  :  2d,  a  desire  of  making  continual 
progress  and  increasing  one's  strength  morp  and  more." — Epis- 
copius,  quoted  by  Dr.  G.  Peck,  "  Christian  Perfection,"  pj).  135 
and  136. 

29.  What  is  the  Wesleyan  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

1st.  That  although  every  believer  as  soon  as  he  is  justified  is 
regenerated,  and  commences  the  incipient  stages  of  sanctification, 
yet  this  does  not  exclude  the  remains  of  much  inherent  sin,  nor  the 
warfare  of  the  flesh  against  the  Spirit,  which  may  continue  for  a 
long  time,  but  which  must  cease  at  some  time  before  the  subject 
can  be  fit  for  heaven. 

2d.  This  state  of  progressive  sanctification  is  not  itself  per- 
fection, which  is  properly  designated  by  the  phrases  "  entire,"  or 
"  I)erfect  sanctification."  This,  sooner  or  later,  every  heir  of  glory 
must  experience  ;  although  the  majority  do  not  reach  it  long  be- 
fore death,  it  is  the  attainment  of  some  in  the  midst  of  life,  and 
consequently  it  is  the  duty  and  privilege  of  all  to  desire,  strive 
for  and  expect  its  attainment  now. 

3d.  This  state  of  evangelical  perfection  does  not  consist  in  an 
ability  to  fulfill  perfectly  the  original  and  absolute  law  of  holi- 
ness under  which  Adam  was  created,  nor  does  it  exclude  all  li- 
ability to  mistake,  or  to  the  infirmities  of  the  flesh,  and  of  natural 
temperament,  but  it  does  exclude  all  inward  disposition  to  sin  as  \- 
well  as  all  outward  commission  of  it,  since  it  consists  in  a  state 
in  wliich  perfect  faith  in  Christ  and  perfect  love  for  Grod  fills  the 
whole  soul  and  governs  the  entire  life,  and  thus  fulfills  all  the  re- 
quirements of  the  "  law  of  Christ,"  under  which  alone  the  Chris- 
tian's probation  is  now  held. 

30.  In  what  sense  do  they  teach  that  men  may  live  without 
sin  ? 

Mr.  Wesley  did  not  himself  use,  though  he  did  not  object  to 
the  phrase  "  sinless  perfection."  He  distinguished  between  "  sin, 
properly  so  called,  i.  e.,  a  voluntary  transgression  of  a  known  law, 
and  sin,  improperly  so  called,  i.  e.,  an  involuntary  transgression 
of  a  divine  law,  known  or  unknown,"  and  declared  "  I  believe 
there  is  no  such  perfection  in  this  life  as  excludes  these  involun- 


416  PERFECTIONISM. 

tary  transgressions,  which  I  apprehend  to  be  naturally  consequent 
on  the  ignorance  and  mistakes  inseparable  from  mortality."  He 
also  declares  that  the  obedience  of  the  perfect  Christian  "  can  not 
bear  the  rigor  of  God's  justice,  but  needs  atoning  blood,"  and 
consequently  the  most  perfect  "must  continually  say,  'forgive  us 
our  trespasses,'  "  and  Dr.  Peck  says  that  the  holier  men  are  here 
"  the  more  they  loathe  and  abhor  themselves."  On  the  other 
hand  they  hold  that  a  Christian  may  in  this  life  attain  to  a  state 
of  perfect  and  constant  love,  which  fulfills  perfectly  all  the  require- 
ments of  the  gospel  covenant.  Violations  of  the  original  and  ab- 
solute law  of  God  are  not  counted  to  the  believer  for  sin,  since 
for  him  Christ  has  been  made  the  end  of  that  law  for  righteous- 
ness, and  for  Christ's  sake  he  has  been  delivered  from  that  law 
and  been  made  subject  to  the  "  law  of  Christ,"  and  that  only  is 
sin  to  the  Christian  which  is  a  violation  of  this  law  of  love.  See 
Mr.  Wesley's  "  Tract  on  Christian  Perfection"  in  the  volume  of 
"  Methodist  Doctrinal  Tracts,"  pp.  294,  310,  312,  and  Dr.  Peck's 
"  Christian  Doc.  of  Perfection,"  p.  204. 

31.  What  law  do  they  say  the  Christian  can  in  this  life  per- 
fectly obey  ? 

Dr.  Peck  says,  p.  244,  "To  fallen  humanity,  though  renewed 
by  grace,  perfect  obedience  to  the  moral  law  is  impracticable  dur- 
ing the  present  probationary  state.  And  consequently  Christian 
perfection  does  not  imply  perfect  obedience  to  the  moral  law." — 
Peck,  p.  244. 

This  moral  law  they  hold  to  be  universal  and  unchangeable, 
all  moral  agents  are  under  perpetual  obligations  to  fulfill  it,  and 
they  are  in  no  degree  released  therefrom  by  their  loss  of  ability 
through  sin. — Peck,  p.  271.  This  law  sustains,  however,  a  two- 
fold relation  to  the  creature.  1st.  It  is  a  rule  of  being  and  act- 
ing. 2d.  It  is  a  condition  of  acceptance.  In  consequence  of  sin, 
it  became  impossible  for  men  to  obtain  salvation  by  the  law,  and 
therefore  Christ  appeared  and  rendered  to  this  law  perfect  satis- 
faction in  our  stead,  and  thus  is  for  us  the  end  of  the  law  for  righte- 
ousness. This  law,  therefore,  remaining  for  ever  as  a  rule  of  duty, 
is  abrogated  by  Christ  as  a  condition  of  our  acceptance.  "  Nor 
is  any  man  living  bound  to  observe  the  Adamic  more  than  the 
Mosaic  law  (I  mean  it  is  not  the  condition  either  of  present  or 


APPLICATION    0¥    REDEMPTION.  417 

future  salvation.)" — Doctrinal  Tracts,  p.  332.  "  The  gospel, 
which  is  the  law  of  love,  the  '  law  of  liberty,'  offers  salvation  upon 
other  terms,  and  yet  provides  the  vindication  cf  the  broken  law. 
The  condition  of  justification  at  first  is  faith  alone,  and  the  con- 
dition of  continued  acceptance  is  faith  working  by  love.  There 
are  degrees  of  faith,  and  degrees  of  love.  .  .  .  Perfect  faitli 
and  perfect  love  is  Christian  perfection,"  "  Christian  character 
is  estimated  by  the  conditions  of  the  gospel ;  Christian  perfection 
implies  the  perfect  performance  of  these  conditions  and  nothing 
more." 

32.  By  ivhat  means  do  they  teach  this  perfection  is  to  he  at- 
tained ? 

Wesley  says,  "  I  believe  this  perfection  is  always  wrought  in 
the  soul  by  a  simple  act  of  faith,  consequently  in  an  instant.  But 
I  believe  there  is  a  gi-adual  work,  both  preceding  and  following 
that  instant." — Quoted  by  Dr.  Peck,  pp.  47,  48. 

They  hold  that  this  entire  sanctification  is  not  to  be  effected 
through  either  the  strength  or  the  merit  of  man,  but  entirely  of 
gi-ace,  for  Christ's  sake,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  faith  involves 
our  believing,  1st,  "  in  the  sufficiency  of  the  provisions  of  the 
gospel  for  the  complete  deliverance  of  the  soul  from  sin."  2d. 
"  That  these  provisions  are  made  for  ws."  3d.  "  That  this  bless- 
ing is  for  us  now."— Peck,  "  Ch.  Doc.  Sane,"  pp.  405-407. 

33.  What  is  the  Oherlin  doctrine  of  perfection  f 

"  It  is  a  full  and  perfect  discharge  of  our  entire  duty,,  of  all 
existing  obligations  to  God,  and  all  other  beings.  It  is-  perfect 
obedience  to  the  moral  law."  This  is  God's  original  and  univer- 
sal law,  which,  however,  always,  not  because  of  gi'ace,  but  of 
sheer  justice,  adjusts  its  demands  to  the  measure  of  the  present 
ability  of  the  subject.  The  law  of  God  can  not  now  justly  de- 
mand that  we  should  love  him  as  we  might  have  done  if  we  had 
always  improved  our  time,  etc.  Yet  a  Christian  may  now  attain 
to  a  state  of  "  perfect  and  disinterested  benevolence,"  may  be, 
"according  to  his  knowledge,  as  upright  as  God  is,"  and  as  "  per- 
fectly conformed  to  tlic  will  of  God  as  is  the  will  of  the  inhabit- 
ants of  heaven."     And  this,  Mr.  Finney  appears  to  teach,  is 

27 


418  PERFECTIONISM. 

essential  for  even  the  lowest  stage  of  genuine  Christian  experi- 
ence. The  amount  of  the  matter  appears  to  be,  Grod  has  a  right 
to  demand  only  that  which  we  have  the  power  to  render  ;  there- 
fore, it  follows  that  we  have  full  power  to  render  all  that  God 
demands,  and,  therefore,  we  may  be  as  perfectly  conformed  to  his 
will  as  it  regards  us,  as  the  inhabitants  of  heaven  are  to  his  will 
as  it  regards  them. 

Pres.  Mahan,  "  Scripture  Doctrines  of  Christian  Perfection," 
and  Prof.  Finney,  Oberlin  Evangelist,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  19,  and  Vol. 
IV.,  No.  15,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Peck. 

34.  State  the  points  of  agreement  and  disagreement  between 
these  several  theories,  Pelagian,  Romish,  Arminian,  and 
Oberlin  f 

1st.  They  all  agree  in  maintaining  that  it  is  possible  for  men 
in  this  life  to  attain  a  state  in  which  they  may  habitually  and 
perfectly  fulfill  all  their  obligations,  i.  e.,  to  be  and  do  perfectly 
all  that  God  requires  them  to  be  or  do  at  present. 

2d.  The  Pelagian  theory  differs  from  all  the  rest,  in  denying 
the  deterioration  of  our  natural  and  moral  powers,  and  conse- 
quently, in  denying  the  necessity  of  the  intervention  of  super- 
natural grace  to  the  end  of  making  men  perfect. 

3d.  The  Pelagian  and  Oberlin  theories  agree  in  making  the 
original  moral  law  of  God  the  standard  of  perfection.  The  Ober- 
lin theologians,  however,  admitting  that  our  powers  are  deterio- 
rated by  sin,  hold  that  God's  law,  as  a  matter  of  sheer  justice, 
adjusts  its  demands  to  the  present  ability  of  the  subject.  The 
Romish  theory  regards  the  same  law  as  the  standard  of  perfec- 
tion, but  differs  from  the  Pelagian  theory  in  maintaining  that 
the  demands  of  this  law  are  adjusted  to  man's  deteriorated  pow- 
ers ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  it  diflfei'S  from  the  Oberlin  theory, 
by  holding  that  the  lowering  of  the  demands  of  this  law  in  adjust- 
ment to  the  enfeebled  powers  of  man,  instead  of  being  of  sheer 
justice,  is  of  grace  for  the  merits  of  Christ.  The  Arminian  the- 
ory differs  from  all  the  rest  in  denying  that  the  original  law  is  the 
standard  of  evangelical  perfection  ;  in  holding  that  that  law  hav- 
ing been  fulfilled  by  Christ,  the  Christian  is  now  required  only  to 
fulfill  the  requirements  of  the  gospel  covenant  of  grace.     This, 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  419 

however,  appears  to  differ  more  in  form  than  essence  from  the 
Romish  position  in  this  regard, 

4th.  The  Romish  and  Arminian  theories  agree,  1st,  in  admit- 
ting that  the  perfect  Christian  is  still  liable  to  transgress  the  pro- 
visions of  the  original  moral  law,  and  that  he  is  subject  to  mis- 
takes and  infirmities.  The  Romanist  calls  them  venial  sins ;  the 
Arminian,  mistakes  or  infirmities.  2d.  In  referring  all  the  work 
of  making  man  perfect  to  the  efficiency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
is  given  for  Christ's  sake.  But  they  differ,  on  the  other  hand, 
1st,  as  to  the  nature  of  that  faith  by  which  sanctification  is  ef- 
fected, and,  2d,  as  to  the  merit  of  good  works. 

35.  What  are  ilie  arguments  upon  toJiich  perfectionists  siis- 
tain  their  theory,  and  hoiv  may  they  he  ansioered  ? 

1st.  They  argue  that  this  perfection  is  attainable  in  this  life, 
(1.)  From  the  commands  of  God,  who  never  will  command  im- 
possibilities, Matt,  v.,  48.  (2.)  From  the  fact  that  abundant 
provision  has  already  been  made  in  the  gospel  for  securing  the 
perfect  sanctification  of  God's  people  ;  in  fact,  all  the  provision 
that  ever  will  be  made.  (3)  From  the  promises  of  God  to 
redeem  Israel  from  all  his  iniquities,  etc.,  Ps.  oxxx.,  8  ;  Ezek. 
xxxvi.,  25-29  ;  1  John  i.,  7,  9.  (4.)  From  the  prayers  of  saints 
recorded  in  Scripture  with  implied  approval,  Ps.  li.,  2  ;  Heb. 
xiii.,  21. 

2d.  They  argue  that  this  perfection  has  in  fact  been  attained, 
(1.)  From  biblical  examples,  as  David,  Acts  xiii.,  22.  See  also 
Gen.  vi.,  9  ;  Job  i.,  1 ;  Luke  i.,  6.  (2.)  Modern  examples — 
Peck's  "  Christian  Perfection,"  pp.  365-396. 

We  answer — 

1st.  The  Scriptures  never  assert  that  a  Christian  may  in  this 
life  attain  to  a  state  in  which  he  may  live  without  sin. 

2d.  The  meaning  of  special  passages  must  be  interpreted  in 
consistency  with  the  entire  testimony  of  Scripture. 

3d.  The  language  of  Scripture  never  implies  that  man  may 
liere  live  without  sin.  The  commands  of  God  are  adjusted  to 
man's  responsibility,  and  the  aspirations  and  prayers  of  the  saints 
to  their  duties  and  ultimate  privileges,  and  not  to  their  present 
ability.  Perfection  is  the  true  aim  of  the  Christian's  effort  in 
every  period  of  growth  and  in  every  act.     The  terms  "  perfect" 


420  PERFECTIONISM. 

and  "  blameless"  are  often  relative,  or  used  to  signify  simple  gen- 
uineness or  sincerity.  Tliis  is  evident  from  the  recorded  fact : — 
4th.  That  all  the  perfect  men  of  the  Scriptures  sometimes 
sinned  ;  witness  the  histories  of  Noah,  Job,  David,  Paul,  and 
compare  Gen.  vi.,  9,  with  Gen.  ix.,  21,  and  Job  i.,  1,  with  Job  iii., 
1,  and  ix.,  20  ;  also  see  Gal.  ii.,  11,  14 ;  Ps.  xix.,  12  ;  Rom.  vii.; 
Gal.  v.,  17 ;  Phil,  iii.,  12-14. 

36.  What  special  objections  hear  against  the  Pelagian  theory 
of  perfection  ? 

This  is  a  part  of  a  wholly  Anti-Christian  system.  Its  con- 
stituent elements  are  a  denial  of  the  Scripture  testimony  with 
regard  to  original  sin,  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  grace  in 
effectual  calling,  and  an  assertion  of  man's  ability  to  save  him- 
self. It  involves  low  views  of  the  guilt  and  turpitude  of  sin, 
and  of  the  extent,  spirituality,  and  unchangeableness  of  God's 
holy  law.  This  is  the  only  perfectly  consistent  theory  of  perfec- 
tion ever  ventilated,  and  in  the  same  proportion  it  is  the  most 
thoroughly  unchristian. 

37.  What  special  ohjections  hear  against  the  Romish  theory  ? 

This  theory  is  inconsistent — 

1st.  With  the  true  nature  of  sin.  It  denies  that  concupis- 
cence is  sin,  and  admits  as  such  only  those  deliberate  acts  of  the 
will  which  assent  to  the  impulse  of  concupiscence.  It  distin- 
guishes between  mortal  and  venial  sins.  The  truth  is  that  every 
sin  is  mortal,  and  concupiscence,  "  sin  dwelling  in  me,"  "  law  in 
ray  members,"  is  of  the  very  essence  of  sin,  Rom.  vii.,  8-23. 

2d.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  God's  holy  law, 
which  is  essentially  immutable,  and  the  demands  of  which  have 
never  been  lowered  in  accommodation  to  the  weakened  faculties 
of  men. 

3d.  It  is  essentially  connected  with  their  theory  of  the  merit 
of  good  works,  and  of  the  higher  merit  of  works  of  supereroga- 
tion which  is  radically  subversive  of  the  essentials  of  the  gospel. 

38.  What  special  ohjections  hear  against  the  Oherlin  theoo'y  ? 
This  theory  appears  to  assimilate  more  nearly  than  the  others 


APPLICATION   OF    REDEMPTION.  421 

with  the  terrible  self-consistency  and  the  Anti-Christian  spirit  of 
the  Pelagian  view.  It  differs  from  that  heresy,  however,  in  hold- 
ing, 1st.  That  the  law  of  God  is,  as  a  matter  of  sheer  justice, 
accommodated  to  the  weakened  faculties  of  men.  2d.  That  the 
shortcomings  of  men  in  the  present  life,  as  measured  by  the 
original  law  of  God,  are  not  sin,  since  a  man's  duty  is  measured 
only  by  his  ability.  3d.  In  making  the  principle  of  this  perfec- 
tion to  consist  in  "  perfect  and  disinterested  benevolence."  In  all 
these  respects,  also,  this  theory  is  inconsistent  with  the  true  nature 
of  God's  law,  the  true  nature  of  sin,  and  the  true  nature  of  virtue. 

39.  What  special  objections  hear  against  the  Arminia'ii 
theory  ? 

This  view,  as  presented  by  the  Wesleyan  standard  writers,  is 
far  less  inconsistent  with  the  principles  and  spirit  of  Christianity 
than  either  of  the  others,  and  consequently  it  is  precisely  in  the 
same  proportion  less  self-consistent  as  a  theory,  and  less  accurate 
in  its  use  of  technical  language.  These  Christian  brethren  are  to 
be  honored  for  their  exalted  views,  and  earnest  advocacy  of  the  duty 
of  pressing  forward  to  the  liighest  measures  of  Christian  attain- 
ment, while  it  is  to  be  for  ever  lamented  that  their  great  founder 
was  so  far  misled  by  the  prejudices  of  system  as  to  bind  in  un- 
natural alliance  so  much  precious  truth  with  a  theory,  and  termi- 
nology proper  only  to  radical  error.  I  will  make  here,  once  for 
all,  the  general  explanation,  that  when  stating  the  Arminian  doc- 
trine on  any  point,  I  have  generally  preferred  to  refer  to  the  form 
in  which  the  doctrine  was  explicitly  defined  by  the  Dutch  Re- 
monstrants, rather  than  to  the  modified,  and,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
far  less  logically  definite  form  in  which  it  is  set  forth  by  the  au- 
thorities of  the  Wesleyan  churches,  who  properly  style  themselves 
^^ Evangelical  Arvcivamn^.''  I  attribute  the  peculiar  theoretical 
indefiniteness  which  appears  to  render  their  definitions  obscure, 
especially  on  the  subjects  of  justification  and  of  perfection,  to  the 
spirit  of  a  warm,  loving,  working  Christianity  struggling  with  the 
false  premises  of  an  Arminian  philosophy. 

1st.  While  over  and  over  insisting  upon  the  distinction  as  to 
the  two-fold  relation  sustained  by  the  original  law  of  God  to  man 
(1.)  as  a  rule  of  being  and  acting,  (2.)  as  a  condition  of  divme 
favor,  their  whole  theory  is  based  upon  a  logical  confusion  of  these 


^2  PERFECTIONISM. 

two  things  so  distinct.  Dr.  Peck  teaches  earnestly,  and  confirms 
by  many  Wesleyan  testimonieSj  excellent  Calvinistic  doctrine 
upon  the  following  points  :  The  original  law  of  God  is  universal  and 
unchangeable,  its  demands  never  can  be  changed  nor  compromised. 
Obedience  to  this  law  was  the  condition  of  the  original  covenant 
of  works.  This  condition  was  broken  by  Adam,  but,  in  our  be- 
half, perfectly  fulfilled  by  Christ,  and  thus  the  integrity  of  God's 
changeless  law  was  preserved.  Therefore,  he  goes  on  to  argue,  the 
believer  is  no  longer  under  the  law,  but  under  the  covenant  of 
grace,  i.  e.,  to  use  Wesley's  own  qualifying  parenthesis,  "  as  the 
condition  of  either  present  or  future  salvation."  Certainly,  we 
answer,  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  us  for  righteousness,  in 
its  forensic  sense,  that  is,  to  secure  our  justification,  but  surely 
Christ  did  not  satisfy  that  changeless  law,  in  our  place,  in  such  a 
sense  that  it  does  not  remain  our  rule  of  action,  to  which  it  is  our 
duty  to  be  personally  conformed.  The  question  of  perfection  is 
one  which  relates  to  om*  personal  character,  not  to  our  relations  ; 
it  is  moral  and  inherent,  and  not  forensic.  To  prove,  therefore, 
what  we  also  rejoice  to  believe,  that  the  original  law  of  God,  un- 
der the  gospel  covenant,  is  no  longer  our  condition  of  salvation, 
does  not  avail  one  iota  towards  proving  that  God,  under  the 
gospel,  demands  an  obedience  adjusted  to  any  easier  standard  than 
was  required  before. 

2d.  This  theory  is  part  of  the  Arminian  view  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  which  we  regard  so  inconsistent  with  the  gospel,  and 
which  Mr.  Watson  (see  Institutes,  Part  II.,  Chap.  XXIII.)  ap- 
pears to  attempt  to  avoid  while  refusing  to  admit  the  imputation 
to  the  believer  of  Christ's  righteousness.  This  view  is,  that 
by  Christ's  propitiation,  he  having  fulfilled  the  original  law  of 
God,  it  is  made  consistent  with  divine  justice  to  present  salvation 
upon  easier  conditions,  i.  e.,  faith  and  evangelical  obedience ; 
Christian  perfection  requiring  nothing  more  than  the  perfect  ful- 
fillment of  these  new  gracious  conditions.  Now  this  view,  besides 
confounding  the  ideas  of  law,  and  of  covenant,  of  a  rule,  and  of  a 
condition,  of  a  ground  of  justification,  and  of  a  standard  of  sanc- 
tification,  is  inconsistent  with  the  broad  teachings  of  the  gospel 
concerning  the  righteousness-  of  Christ,  and  the  oflice  of  faith  in 
justification.  It  makes  the  merit  of  Christ  only  in  some  uncer- 
tain and  distant  way  the  occasion  of  our  salvation,  and  faith,  and 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  423 

evangelical  obedience,  in  the  j)lace  of  perfect  obedience  under  the 
old  covenant,  the  ground  instead  of  the  mere  instrument  and  fruit 
of  our  justification.  Logically  developed,  this  theory  must  lead 
to  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  merit  of  good  works. 

3d.  This  theory  denies  that  mistakes  and  infirmities  resulting 
from  the  efiects  of  original  sin,  are  themselves  sin,  yet  admits 
that  they  are  to  be  confessed,  forgiveness  implored  for  them, 
and  the  atonement  of  Christ's  blood  applied  to  them,  and  that 
the  more  perfect  a  man  becomes  the  more  he  abhors  his  own  in- 
ternal state.  Surely  this  is  a  confusion  of  language,  and  abuse 
of  the  word  sin.  What  is  sin  but  (1.)  that  which  transgresses 
God's  original  law,  (2.)  which  needs  Christ's  atonement,  (3.) 
which  should  be  confessed,  and  must  be  forgiven,  (4)  which  lays 
a  proper  foundation  for  self-abhorrence. 

40,  What  express  declarations  of  Scripture  a7X  contradicted  by 
every  possible  modification  of  the  theory  of  Christian  perfection  '^ 

1  Kings  viii.,  46  ;  Prov.  xx.,  9  ;  Eccle.  vii,,  20  ;  James  iii., 
2  ;  1  John  i.,  8. 

41,  How  may  it  be  shown  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  experience 
of  saints,  as  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

See  Paul's  account  of  himself,  Rom.  vii,,  14r-25  ;  Phil,  iii., 
12-14.  See  case  of  David,  Ps,  xix.,  12  ;  Ps.  li.  ;  of  Moses,  Ps. 
xc,  8  ;  of  Job,  Job  xlii.,  5,  Q  )  of  Daniel,  ix.,  20.  See  Luke 
xviii.,  13  ;  Gal.  ii.,  11-13  ;  vi.,  1  ;  James  v,,  16. 

42,  How  does  it  conflict  with  the  ordinary  experience  of  God's 
'people  ? 

The  more  holy  a  man  is,  the  more  humble,  self-renouncing, 
self-abhorring,  and  the  more  sensitive  to  every  sin  he  becomes, 
and  the  more  closely  he  clings  to  Christ,  The  moral  imperfec- 
tions which  cling  to  him  he  feels  to  be  sins,  laments  and  strives 
to  overcome  them.  Believers  find  that  their  life  is  a  constant 
warfare,  and  they  need  to  take  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  stonn, 
and  watch  while  they  pray.  They  are  always  subject  to  the  con- 
stant chastisement  of  their  Father's  loving  hand,  which  can  only 
be  designed  to  correct  their  imperfections,  and  to  confirm  their 
graces.     And  it  has  been  notoriously  the  fact  that  the  best  Chris- 


424  PEKFECTIONISM. 

tians  have  been  those  who  have  been  the  least  prone  to  claim  the 
uttainment  of  perfection  for  themselves. 

43.  WJiat  are  the  legitimate  practical  effects  of  perjec- 
tionism  ? 

The  tendency  of  every  such  doctrine  must  be  evil,  except  in 
so  far  as  it  is  modified  or  counteracted  by  limiting  or  inconsistent 
truths  held  in  connection,  which  is  preeminently  the  case  with 
respect  to  the  Wesleyan  view,  from  the  amount  of  pure  gospel 
which  in  that  instance  the  figment  of  perfectionism  alloys.  But 
perfectionism,  by  itself,  must  tend,  1st,  to  low  views  of  God's 
law  ;  2d,  to  inadequate  views  of  the  heinousness  of  sin  ;  3d,  to  a 
low  standard  of  moral  excellence ;  4th,  to  spiritual  pride  and 
fanaticism. 


V 


CHAPTER     XXXIII. 

PERSEVERANCE      OF      THE      SAINTS. 

1.  What  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  as  to  the  perseverance  of 

the  saints  ? 

"  They  wliom  God  hath  accepted  in  his  beloved,  effectively 
called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  can  neither  totally  nor  finally 
fall  away  from  the  state  of  gi^ace  ;  but  shall  certainly  persevere 
therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally  saved." — Con.  Faith,  Chap. 
XVII. ;  L.  Cat.,  question  79. 

2.  Bt/  luhat  arguments  may  the  certainty  of  the  final  perse- 
verance of  the  saints  he  established  ? 

1st.  The  direct  assertions  of  Scripture,  John  x.,  28,  29  ;  Rom. 
xi.,  29  ;  Phil.  1,6;  1  Pet.  i.,  5. 

2d.  This  certainty  is  a  necessary  inference,  from  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  (1.)  of  election,  Jer.  xxxi.,  3;  Matt,  xxiv.,  22-24; 
Acts  xiii.,  48  ;  Rom.  viii.,  30  ;  (2.)  of  the  covenant  of  gi-ace, 
wherein  the  Father  gave  his  j^eople  to  his  Son  as  the  reward  of 
his  obedience  and  sufiering,  Jer.  xxxii.,  40  ;  John  xvii.,  2-6  ; 
(3.)  of  the  union  of  Christians  with  Christ,  in  the  federal  aspect 
of  which  Christ  is  their  surety,  and  they  can  not  fail,  (Rom.  viii., 
1,)  and  in  the  spiritual  and  vital  aspect  of  which  they  abide  in 
him,  and  because  he  lives  they  must  live  also,  John  xiv.,  19  ; 
Rom.  viii.,  38,  39  ;  Gal.  ii.,  20  ;  (4.)  of  the  atonement,  wherein 
Christ  discharged  all  the  obligations  of  his  people  to  the  law  as  a 
covenant  of  life,  and  purchased  for  them  all  covenanted  blessings ; 
if  one  of  them  should  fail,  therefore,  the  sure  foundation  of  all 
would  be  shaken.  Is.  liii.,  6,  11  ;  Matt,  xx.,  28  ;  1  Pet.  ii.,  24  ; 
(5.)  of  justification,  which  declares  all  the  conditions  of  the  cove- 


426  PERSEVERANCE. 

nant  of  life  satisfied,  and  sets  its  subject  into  a  new  relation  to 
God  for  all  future  time,  so  that  he  can  not  fall  under  condemna- 
tion, since  he  is  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace,  Rom.  vi.,  14 ; 
(6.)  of  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  a  as  a  seal  hy  which  we 
are  marked  as  belonging  to  God,  h  as  an  earnest,  or  first  install- 
ment of  the  promised  redemption,  in  pledge  of  complete  fulfill- 
ment, John  xiv.,  16  ;  2  Cor.  i.,  21,  22  ;  v.,  5 ;  Eph.  i.,  14 ;  (7.) 
of  the  prevalency  of  Christ's  intercession,  John  xi.,  42  ;  xvii.,  11, 
15,  20  ;  Rom.  viii.,  34. 

3.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church  on  this  subject  ? 

Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  VI.,  canon  23.  "  If  any  one  main- 
tain that  a  man  once  justified  can  not  lose  grace,  and,  therefore, 
that  he  who  falls  and  sins  never  was  truly  justified,  let  him  be 
accursed." 

4.  What  is  the  Arminian  doctrine  on  this  point  ? 

It  is  an  inseparable  part  of  the  Arminian  system,  flowing 
necessarily  from  their  views  of  election,  of  the  design  and  effect 
of  Christ's  death,  and  of  sufficient  grace  and  free  will,  that  those 
who  were  once  justified  and  regenerated  may,  by  neglecting  grace 
and  grieving  the  Holy  Spirit,  fall  into  such  sins  as  are  incon- 
sistent with  true  justifying  faith,  and  continuing  and  dying  in  the 
same,  may  consequently  finally  fall  into  perdition. — "  Confession 
of  the  Remonstrants,"  xi.,  7. 

5.  What  objection  is  urged  against  the  orthodox  doctrine  on 
the  ground  of  the  free  agency  of  man  ? 

Those  who  deny  the  certainty  of  the  final  perseverance  of  the 
saints  hold  the  false  theory  that  liberty  of  the  will  consists  in  in- 
difference, or  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  and  consequently  that 
certainty  is  inconsistent  with  liberty.  This  fallacy  is  disproved 
above,  Chapter  XVIII,  see  especially  question  9. 

That  God  does  govern  the  free  acts  of  his  creatures,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  is  clear  from  history  and  prophecy,  from  universal 
Christian  consciousness  and  experience,  and  from  Scripture,  Acts 
ii.,  23  ;  Eph.  i.,  11  ;  Phil,  ii.,  13  ;  Prov.  xxi.,  1. 

That  he  does  secure  the  final  perseverance  of  his  people  in  a 


APPLICATION    OF    REDEMPTION.  427 

manner  perfectly  consistent  with  their  free  agency  is  also  clear. 
He  changes  their  affections  and  thus  determines  the  will  by  its 
own  free  spontaniety.  He  brings  them  into  the  position  of  children 
by  adoption,  suiTOunding  them  with  all  of  the  sources  and  instru- 
ments of  sanctifying  influence,  and  when  they  sin  he  carefully 
chastises  and  restores  them.  Hence  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  is 
not  that  a  man  who  has  once  truly  believed  is  secure  of  ultimate 
salvation,  subsequently  feel  and  act  as  he  may  ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  that  God  secures  the  ultimate  salvation  of  every  one  who 
is  once  truly  united  to  his  Son  by  faith,  by  securing,  through  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  his  most  free  perseverance  in  Christian 
feeling  and  obedience  to  the  end. 

6.  What  objection  is  urged  against  the  orthodox  doctrine 
upon  the  ground  of  its  supposed  unfavorable  influence  upon 
morality  ? 

The  objection  charged  is,  that  this  doctrine,  "  once  in  grace 
always  in  grace,"  must  naturally  lead  to  carelessness,  through  a 
false  sense  of  security  in  our  present  position,  and  of  confidence 
that  God  will  secure  our  final  salvation  independently  of  our 
own  agency. 

Although  it  is  certain,  on  the  part  of  God,  that  if  we  are 
elected  and  called,  we  shall  be  saved  ;  yet  it  requires  constant 
watchfulness,  and  diligence,  and  prayer  to  make  that  calling  and 
election  sure  to  us,  2  Pet.  i.,  10.  That  God  powerfully  works 
with  us,  and  therefore  secures  for  us  success  in  our  contest  with 
sin,  is  in  Scripture  urged  as  a  powerful  reason  not  for  sloth,  but 
for  diligence,  Phil,  ii.,  13.  The  orthodox  doctrine  does  not  afiirm 
certainty  of  salvation  because  we  have  once  believed,  but  cer- 
tainty oi  perseverance  in  holiness  if  we  have  truly  believed,  which 
perseverance  in  holiness,  therefore,  in  opposition  to  all  weaknesses 
and  temptations,  is  the  only  sure  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of 
past  experience,  or  of  the  validity  of  confidence  respecting  future 
salvation,  and  surely  such  an  assurance  of  certainty  can  not  en- 
courage cither  carelessness  or  immorality. 

7.  What  objection  to  this  doctrine  is  founded  on  the  exhorta- 
tions to  diligence  ;  and  on  the  warnings  of  danger  in  case  of 
carelessness  addressed  to  believers  in  the  Scriptures  ? 


428  PERSEVERANCE. 

The  objection  alleged  is,  that  these  exhortations  and  warn- 
ings necessarily  imply  the  contingency  of  the  believer's  salvation, 
as  conditioned  upon  the  believer's  continued  faithfulness,  and 
consequently  involving  liability  to  apostasy. 

We  answer — 

1st.  The  outward  word  necessarily  comes  to  all  men  alike, 
addressing  them  in  the  classes  in  which  they  regard  themselves  as 
standing  ;  and  as  professors,  or  "  those  who  think  they  stand,"  are 
many  of  them  self-deceived,  this  outward  word  truly  implies  the 
uncertainty  of  their  position,  (as  far  as  man's  knowledge  goes,) 
and  their  liability  to  fall. 

2d.  That  God  secures  the  perseverance  in  holiness  of  all  his 
true  people  by  the  use  of  means  adapted  to  then-  nature  as  rational 
moral  and  free  agents.  Viewed  in  themselves  they  are  always,  as 
God  warns  them,  unstable,  and  therefore,  as  he  exhorts  them,  they 
must  diligently  cleave  to  his  grace.  It  is  always  true,  also,  that 
if  they  apostatize  they  shall  be  lost ;  but  by  means  of  these  very 
threatenings  his  Spirit  graciously  secures  them  from  apostasy. 

8.  What  special  texts  are  relied  upon  to  rebut  the  arguments 
of  the  orthodox  upon  this  subject  ? 

Ezek.  xviii.,  24  ;  Matt,  xiii.,  20,  21  ;  2  Pet.  ii.,  20,  21,  and 
especially  Heb.  vi.,  4^6  ;  x.,  26. 

All  of  these  passages  may  be  natui'ally  explained  in  perfect 
consistency  with  the  orthodox  doctrine  which  is  supported  upon 
that  wide  range  of  Scripture  evidence  we  have  set  forth  above, 
question  2.  They  present  either,  1st,  hypothetical  warnings  of 
the  consequences  of  apostasy  with  the  design  of  preventing  it, 
by  showing  the  natural  consequences  of  indifference  and  of  sin, 
and  the  necessity  for  earnest  care  and  effort  ;  or,  2d,  they  indicate 
the  dreadful  consequences  of  misimproving  or  of  abusing  the  in- 
fluences of  common  grace,  which,  although  involving  great  respon- 
sibility, nevertheless  come  short  of  a  radical  change  of  nature  or 
genuine  conversion. 

9.  What  argument  do  the  opponents  of  this  doctrine  urge 
from  Bible  examples  and  from  our  own  daily  experience  of 
apostates  ? 

They  cite  from  the  Scriptures  such  instances  as  that  of  David 


APPLICATION   OF   REDEMPTION.  429 

and  Peter,  and  they  refer  to  the  many  examples  of  the  apostasy 
of  well-acredited  professors,  with  which,  alas  !  we  are  all  familiar. 
All  these  examples,  however,  fall  evidently  under  one  of  two 
classes,  either,  1st,  they  were  from  the  beginning  without  the  real 
power  of  godliness,  although  bearing  so  fair  an  appearance  of  life 
in  the  sight  of  their  fellow-men,  Rom.  ii.,  28  ;  ix.,  6  ;  1  John  ii., 
19  ;  Rev.  iii.,  1  ;  or,  2d,  they  are  true  believers  who,  because  of 
the  temporary  withdrawal  of  restraining  grace,  have  been  allowed 
to  backslide  for  a  time,  while  in  every  such  case  they  are  gra- 
ciously restored,  and  that  generally  by  chastisement.  Rev.  iii.,  19. 
Of  this  class  were  David  and  Peter.  No  true  Christian  is  capable 
of  deliberate  apostasy  ;  his  furthest  departure  from  righteousness 
being  occasioned  by  the  sudden  impulse  of  passion  or  fear.  Matt, 
xxiv.,  24  ;  Luke  xxii.,  31. 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

DEATH  AND  THE  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

1.  By  ivhat  forms  of  expression  is  death  described  in  the 
Bible  ? 

A  departure  out  of  this  world,  2  Tim.  iv.,  6.  A  going  the 
way  of  all  the  earth,  Josh,  xxiii.,  14.  A  being  gathered  to  one's 
fathers,  Judges  ii.,  10  ;  and  to  one's  people,  Deut.  xxxii.,  50.  A 
dissolving  the  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle,  2  Cor.  v.,  1.  A 
returning  to  the  dust,  Eccle.  xii.,  7.  A  sleep,  John  xi.,  11.  A 
giving  up  the  ghost.  Acts,  v.,  10.  A  being  absent  from  the  body 
and  present  with  the  Lord,  2  Cor.  v.,  8.  Sleeping  in  Jesus,  1 
Thess.  iv.,  14, 

2.  What  is  death  ? 

The  suspension  of  the  personal  union  between  the  body  and 
the  soul,  followed  by  the  resolution  of  the  body  into  its  chemical 
elements,  and  the  introduction  of  the  soul  into  that  separate  state 
of  existence  which  may  be  assigned  to  it  by  its  Creator  and  Judge, 
Eccle.  xii.,  7. 

3.  Hoio  does  death  stand  related  to  sin  ? 

The  entire  penalty  of  the  law,  including  all  the  spiritual, 
physical  and  eternal  penal  consequences  of  sin,  is  called  death  in 
Scripture.  The  sentence  was,  "  The  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
shalt  surely  die,"  Gen.  ii.,  17  ;  Rom.  v.,  12.  That  this  included 
natural  death  is  proved  by  Rom,  v.,  13,  14  ;  and  from  the  fact 
that  when  Christ  bore  the  penalty  of  the  law  it  was  necessary  for 
him  to  die,  Heb.  ix.,  22. 

4.  Why  do  the  jiistijied  die  1 

Justification  changes  the  entire  federal  relation  of  its  subject 


IMMORTALITY   OF   THE   SOUL.  431 

to  the  law,  and  raises  him  for  ever  above  all  the  penal  conse- 
quences of  sin.  Death,  therefore,  while  remaining  a  part  of  the 
penalty  of  the  unsatisfied  law  in  relation  to  the  unjust,  is  like  all 
other  afflictions  changed,  in  relation  to  the  justified,  into  an  ele- 
ment of  improving  discipline.  It  is  made  necessary  for  them  from 
the  present  constitution  of  the  body,  while  it  is  to  both  body  and 
soul  the  gateway  of  heaven.  They  are  made  free  from  its  sting 
and  fear,  1  Cor,  xv.,  55,  51 ;  Heb.  ii.,  15.  They  are  now  "  blessed" 
in  death  because  they  die  "  in  the  Lord,"  Rev.  xiv.,  13,  and  they 
shall  at  last  be  completely  delivered  from  its  power  when  the  last 
enemy  shall  be  destroyed,  1  Cor.  xv.,  26. 

5.  What  evidence  have  we  of  the  immateriality  of  the  soul, 
and  what  argument  may  be  derived  from  that  somxe  in  j^roof  of 
its  continued  existence  after  death  ? 

For  the  evidence  establishing  the  immateriality  of  the  soul  see 
Chap.  I.,  question  32. 

Now  although  the  continued  existence  of  any  creature  must 
depend  simply  upon  the  will  of  its  Creator,  that  will  may  either 
be  made  known  by  direct  revelation,  or  inferred  in  any  particular 
instance  by  analogical  reasoning  from  what  is  known  of  his  doings 
in  other  cases.  As  far  as  this  argument  from  analogy  goes  it  de- 
cidedly confirms  the  belief  that  a  spiritual  substance  is,  as  such, 
immortal.  The  entire  range  of  human  experience  fails  to  make 
us  acquainted  with  a  single  instance  of  the  annihilation  of  an 
atom  of  matter,  i.  e.,  of  matter  as  such.  Material  bodies,  organ- 
ized 01-  chemically  compounded,  or  mere  mechanical  aggi-egations, 
we  observe  constantly  coming  into  existence,  and  in  turn  passing 
away,  yet  never  through  the  annihilation  of  their  elementary  con- 
stituents or  component  parts,  but  simply  from  the  dissolution  of 
that  relation  which  these  parts  had  temporarily  sustained  to  each 
other.  Spirit,  however,  is  essentially  simple  and  single,  and  there- 
fore incapable  of  that  dissolution  of  parts  to  which  material 
bodies  are  subject.  We  infer,  therefore,  that  spirits  are  immortal 
since  they  can  not  be  subject  to  that  only  form  of  death  of  which 
we  have  any  knowledge. 

6.  What  argument  in  favor  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
may  be  derived  from  its  imperfect  development  in  this  ivorld  ? 


432  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

In  ever)-  department  of  organized  life  every  individual  crea- 
ture, in  its  normal  state,  tends  to  grow  toward  a  condition  of 
complete  development,  wliicli  is  the  perfection  of  its  kind.  The 
acorn  both  prophesies  and  grows  toward  the  oak.  Every  human 
being,  however,  is  conscious  that  in  this  life  he  never  attains  that 
completeness  which  the  Creator  contemplated  in  the  ideal  of  his 
type  ;  he  has  faculties  undeveloped,  capacities  unfulfilled,  natural 
desires  unsatisfied  ;  he  knows  he  was  designed  to  be  much  more 
than  he  is,  and  to  fill  a  much  higher  sphere.  As  the  prophetic 
reason  of  the  Creator  makes  provision  for  the  butterfly  through 
the  instinct  of  the  caterpillar,  so  the  same  Creator  reveals 
the  immortal  existence  of  the  soul  in  a  higher  sphere  by 
means  of  its  conscious  limitations  and  instinctive  movements 
in  this. 

7.  What  argument  on  this  subject  may  be  derived  from  the 
distributive  justice  of  God  ? 

It  is  an  invariable  judgment  of  natural  reason,  and  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  moral  good  is  associated  with 
happiness,  and  moral  evil  with  misery,  by  the  unchangeable  na- 
ture and  j)urpose  of  God.  But  the  history  of  all  individuals  and 
communities  alike  establishes  the  fact  that  this  life  is  not  a  state 
of  retribution  ;  that  here  wickedness  is  often  associated  wdth 
prosperity,  and  moral  excellence  with  sorrow  ;  we  must  hence 
conclude  that  there  is  a  future  state  in  which  all  that  appears  at 
present  inconsistent  wi'th  the  justice  of  God  shall  be  adjusted. 
See  Ps.  Ixxiii. 

8.  How  do  the  operations  of  conscience  point  to  a  future 
state  ? 

Conscience  is  the  voice  of  God  in  the  soul,  which  witnesses  to 
our  sinfulness  and  ill-desert,  and  to  his  essential  justice.  Ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  those  who  have  found  refuge  in  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  every  man  feels  that  his  moral  relations  to  God 
are  never  settled  in  this  life,  and  hence  the  characteristic  testi- 
mony of  the  human  conscience,  in  spite  of  great  individual  dif- 
ferences as  to  light,  sensibility,  etc.,  has  always  been  coinci- 
dent with  the  word  of  God,  that  "  after  death  comes  the  judg- 
ment." 


IMMORTALITY    OF    THE    SOUL.  433 

9.  How  is  this  doctrine  established  by  the  general  consent  of 
raankind  ? 

This  has  been  the  universal  faith  of  all  men,  of  all  races,  and 
in  all  ages.  Universal  consent,  like  every  universal  effect, 
must  be  referred  to  an  equally  universal  cause,  and  this  consent, 
uniform  among  men  differing  in  every  other  possible  respect,  can 
be  referred  to  no  common  origin  other  than  the  constitution  of 
man's  common  nature,  which  is  the  testimony  of  his  Maker. 

10.  Show  that  the  Old  Testament  teaches  the  same  distinction 
between  soul  and  body  that  is  taught  in  the  Neio  Testament. 

1st.  In  the  account  of  the  creation.  The  body  was  formed 
of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and  the  soul  in  the  image  of  the  Al- 
mighty, Gen.  i.,  26  ;  ii.,  7. 

2d.  In  the  definition  of  death,  Eccle.  xii.,  7.  "  Then  shall  the 
dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  shall  return  to 
God  who  gave  it."     See  also  Eccle.  iii.,  21. 

11.  What  does  the  Old  Testament  teach  concerning  Sheol  ? 
and  how  is  it  shown,  from  the  usage  of  that  word,  that  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  ivas  a  doctrine  of  the  ancient  cov&nant  ? 

Sheol  is  derived  from  the  verb  Vn»,  to  ask,  expressing  the  sense 
of  our  English  proverb,  that  the  "  grave  crieth  give,  give."  It  is 
used  in  the  Old  Testament  to  signify,  in  a  vague  and  general 
sense,  the  state  of  the  departed,  both  the  good  and  bad,  interme- 
diate between  death  and  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous,  (Hosea 
xiii.,  14,)  generally  invested  with  gloomy  associations,  and  indefi- 
nitely referred  to  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth,  Deut.  xxxii.,  22  ; 
Amos  ix.,  2.  Thus  it  is  used  for  grave  as  the  receptacle  of  the 
body  after  death,  (Gen.  xxxvii.,  35  ;  Job  xiv.,  13,)  but  principally 
to  designate  the  receptacle  of  departed  spirits,  without  explicit 
reference  to  any  division  between  the  stations  allotted  to  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked.  That  they  were  active  and  conscious 
in  this  state  appears  to  be  indicated  by  what  is  revealed  of  Sam- 
uel, 1  Sam.  xxviii.,  7-20 ;  Is.  xiv.,  15-17.  With  regard  to  the 
good,  however,  the  residence  in  Sheol  was  looked  upon  only  as 
intermediate  between  death  and  a  happy  resurrection,  Ps.  xlix., 
15.     In  their  treatment  of  this  whole  subject,  the  Old  Testament 

28 


434  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

Scriptures  rather  take  the  continued  existence  of  the  soul  for 
granted,  than  exj)licitly  assert  it. — Fairbairn's  Herm.  Manual ; 
Josephus'  Ant.,  XVIII.,  1. 

12.  What  is  the  purport  of  our  Saviour's  argument  on  this 
subject  against  the  Sadducees  ? 

Luke  XX.,  37,  38.  Long  after  the  death  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and 
Jacob,  Jehovah  designated  himself  to  Moses  as  their  God,  Ex. 
ill,,  6.  But,  argues  Christ  against  the  Sadducee  who  denied  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  "  he  is  the  Grod,  not  of  the  dead,  but  of 
the  living."  This  more  immediately  proves  the  immortality  of 
their  souls,  but  as  God  is  the  covenant  God  of  persons,  and  as 
the  persons  of  these  patriarchs  included  alike  body  and  soul,  this 
argument  likewise  establishes  the  ultimate  immortality  of  the 
body  also,  i.  e.,  of  the  entire  person. 

13.  What  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  assert  or  imply  the 
hope  of  a  state  of  blessedness  after  death  ? 

Num.  xxiii.,  10  ;  Job  xix.,  26,  27  ;  Ps.  xvi.,  9-11 ;  xvii.,  15 ; 
xlix.,  14,  15 ;  Ixxiii.,  24-26  ;  Is.  xxv.,  8 ;  xxvi.,  19  ;  Hosea  xiii., 
14  ;  Dan.  xii.,  2,  3,  13. 

14.  What  other  evidence  does  the  Old  Testament  afford  of  the 
continued  existence  of  the  soul  ? 

1st.  The  translations  of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  and  the  temporary 
reappearance  of  Samuel,  Gen.  v.,  24 ;  Heb.  xi.,  5  ;  2  Kings  ii., 
11  ;  1  Sam.  xxviii.,  7-20. 

2d.  The  command  to  abstain  froni  the  arts  of  necromancy 
implies  the  prevalent  existence  of  a  belief  that  the  dead  still 
continue  in  being  in  another  state,  Deut.  xviii.,  11,  12. 

3d.  In  their  symbolical  system  Canaan  represents  the  perma- 
nent inlieritance  of  Christ's  people,  and  the  entire  purpose  of  the 
whole  Old  Testament  revelation,  as  apprehended  by  Old  Testa- 
ment believers,  had  respect  to  a  future  existence  and  inheritance 
after  death.  This  is  directly  asserted  in  the  New  Testament,  Acts 
xxvi.,  6-8  ;  Heb.  xi.,  10-16  ;  Eph.  i.,  14. 

15.  What  does  the  Neio  Testament  teach  of  the  state  of  the 
soul  immediately  after  death  ? 


STATE   OF   THE   SOUL    AFTER   DEATH,  435 

"The  souls  of  the  righteous,  being  made  perfect  in  holiness, 
are  received  into  the  highest  heavens,  where  they  behold  the  face 
of  God  in  light  and  glory,  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their 
bodies,"  Luke  xxiii.,  43  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  6,  8  ;  Phil,  i.,  23,  24.  "  And 
the  souls  of  unbelievers  are  cast  into  hell,  where  they  remain  in 
torment  and  utter  darkness,  reserved  to  the  judgment  of  the  last 
day,"  Luke  xvi.,  23,  24  ;  Jude  v.,  6,  7 

16.  What  is  the  signijlcation  and  usage  of  the  word  diSrjg, 
Hades,  in  ScriiJture  ? 

"Aidrjg,  from  a  primitive,  and  Ideiv,  designates  generally  the  in- 
visible world  inhabited  by  the  spirits  of  dead  men.  Among  the 
ancient  classical  heathen,  this  invisible  world  was  regarded  as  con- 
sisting of  two  contrasted  regions,  the  one  called  Elysium,  the 
abode  of  the  blessed  good,  and  the  other  Tartarus,  the  abode  of 
the  vicious  and  miserable. 

It  was  used  by  the  authors  of  the  Septuagint  to  translate  the 
Hebrew  word  Sheol,  compare  Acts  ii.,  27,  and  Ps.  xvi.,  10.  In 
the  NcAv  Testament  this  word  occurs  only  eleven  times,  Matt,  xi., 
23  ;  xvi.,  18  ;  Luke  x.,  15  ;  xvi.,  23  ;  Acts,  ii.,  27,  31  ;  1  Cor. 
XV.,  55  ;  Rev.  i.,  18  ;  vi.,  8  ;  xx.,  13,  14.  In  every  case,  except 
1  Cor.  XV.,  55,  where  the  more  critical  editions  of  the  original 
substitute  the  word  ddvare  in  the  place  of  ad?/,  hades  is  trans- 
lated hell,  and  certainly  always  represents  the  invisible  world  as 
under  the  dominion  of  Satan,  as  opposed  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
and  as  finally  subdued  under  his  victorious  power.  See  Fair- 
bairn's  Herm.  Manuel. 

17.  What  is  the  signijlcation  and  usage  of  the  words  -n-apa- 
Seiaog  and  yhvva  ? 

HaQddeiaoq,  Paradise,  derived  from  some  oriental  language, 
and  adopted  into  both  the  Hebrew  and  G-reek  languages,  signifies 
parks,  pleasure  gardens,  Neh.  ii.,  8  ;  Eccle.  ii.,  5.  The  Septu- 
gint  translators  use  this  word  to  represent  the  garden  of  Eden, 
G-en.  ii.,  8,  etc.  It  occurs  only  three  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, Luke  xxiii.,  43  ;  2  Cor.  xii.,  4  ;  Rev.  ii.,  7  ;  where  the 
context  proves  that  it  refers  to  the  "  third  heavens,"  the  garden 
of  the  Lord,  in  which  grows  the  "  tree  of  life,"  which  is  by  the 
river  which  flows  out  of  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb,  Rev, 
xxii.,  1,  2. 


436  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTEK  DEATH. 

Teevva  is  a  compound  Hebrew  word,  expressed  in  Greek  letters, 
signifying  "  Valley  of  Hinnom,  Josh,  xv.,  8,  skirting  Jerusalem 
on  the  south,  running  westward  from  the  valley  of  Jehosaphat, 
under  Mount  Zion.  Here  was  established  the  idolatrous  worship 
of  Moloch,  to  whom  infants  were  burned  in  sacrifice,  1  Kings  xi., 
7.  This  worship  was  broken  up  and  the  place  desecrated  by  Jo- 
siah,  2  Kings  xxiii.,  10-14,  after  which  it  appears  to  have  be- 
come the  receptacle  for  all  the  filth  of  the  city,  and  of  the  dead 
bodies  of  animals,  and  of  malefactors,  to  consume  which  fires 
would  appear  to  have  been  from  time  to  time  kej^t  up,  hence 
called  Tophet,  an  abomination,  a  vomit,  Jer.  vii.,  31." — Robin- 
son's Greek  L6x.  By  a  natural  figure,  therefore,  this  word  was 
used  to  designate  the  place  of  final  punishment,  forcibly  canying 
with  it  the  idea  of  pollution  and  misery.  It  occurs  twelve  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  always  to  signify  the  place  of  final 
torment,  Matt,  v.,  22,  29,  30  ;  x.,  28  ;  xviii.,  9  ;  xxiii.,  15,  33 ; 
Mark  ix.,  43,  47  ;  Luke  xii.,  5  ;  James  iii.,  6. 

18.  What  various  views  are  maintained  as  to  the  intermedi- 
ate state  of  the  souls  of  men  hetiveen  death  and  the  Judgment  ? 

1st,  Many  Protestants,  especially  of  the  Church  of  England, 
retaining  the  classical  sense  of  the  word  Hades,  as  equivalent  to 
the  Jewish  Sheol,  (as  given  above,  question  11),  hold  that  there  is 
an  intermediate  region,  consisting  of  two  distinct  departments,  in 
which  the  disembodied  souls,  both  of  the  lost  and  of  the  redeemed, 
respectively  await  the  resurrection  of  their  bodies,  the  award  of 
judgment,  and  their  translation  to  their  final  abodes  of  bliss  or 
misery. 

2d.  The  Romanists  hold  the  above  view,  modified  by  their 
doctrine  of  purgatory.     See  below,  question  20. 

3d.  Materialists  and  some  Socinians  hold  that  the  souls  of 
men  remain  in  a  state  of  unconsciousness  from  death  until  the 
moment  of  the  resm-rection.  The  only  positive  argument  they 
are  able  to  advance  in  favor  of  this  view  is,  that  we  know  nothing 
by  experience,  and  hence  are  utterly  unable  to  conceive  of  a  state 
of  conscious  intelligent  activity,  when  the  soul  is  separated  from 
the  body.  Archbishop  Whately,  on  most  subjects  so  judicious, 
has  advocated  this  view  in  his  "  View  of  Sc.  Rev.  concerning  a 
Future  State." 


STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH.  437 

19.  Hoiv  may  it  he  proved  that  the  souls  of  believers  do  im- 
mediately pass  into  glory  ? 

The  view  held  by  the  great  majority  of  evangelical  Christians, 
(see  above,  question  15,)  includes  these  two  points — 

1st.  The  souls  both  of  believers  and  of  the  reprobate  continue 
after  death  both  conscious  and  active,  though  until  the  resurrec- 
tion separated  from  theu'  bodies. 

2d.  The  souls  of  believers  are  present  with  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  enjoy  bright  revelations  of  God  and  the  society  of 
holy  angels  ;  the  souls  of  the  reprobate  being  in  the  place  as- 
signed to  the  devil  and  his  ano-els.  Nevertheless  it  is  also  held 
that,  as  the  complete  man  consists  both  of  soul  and  body,  the 
souls  of  the  blessed  during  the  interval  between  their  death  and 
the  resurrection,  although  with  Christ,  and  inconceivably  happy, 
have  not  attained  to  the  perfection  of  either  the  glory  or  blessed- 
ness which  is  designed  for  them  in  Christ.  This  highest  state  of 
all  must  await  the  redemption  of  their  bodies,  and  of  their  pur- 
chased possession,  and  the  restitution  of  all  things. 

This  hope  of  Christians  in  both  of  the  above  points  appears 
to  be  abundantly  established  by  the  following  Scriptures  :  The 
reappearance  of  Samuel,  1  Sam.  xxviii.,  7-20.  The  appearance 
of  Moses  and  Elias  at  the  transfiguration  of  Christ,  Matt,  xvii.,  3. 
Christ's  address  to  the  thief  upon  the  cross,  Luke  xxiii.,  43.  The 
parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  Luke  xvi.,  23,  24.  The 
prayer  of  dying  Stephen,  Acts  vii.,  59.  Paul's  dilemma,  2  Cor. 
V.  1-8  ;  Phil,  i.,  23,  24  ;  1  Thes.  v.,  10.  See  also  Eph.  iii.,  15  ; 
Heb.  vi.,  12,  20  ;  Kev.  v.,  9  ;   vi.,  9-11  ;  vii.,  9  ;  xiv.,  1,  3. 

20.  What  do  Romanists  teach  with  regard  to  the  souls  of 
men  after  death  ? 

1st.  That  the  souls  of  unbaptized  infants  go  to  a  place  pre- 
pared expressly  for  them,  called  the  " limhus  infantum"  where 
they  endure  no  positive  suffering,  although  they  do  not  enjoy  the 
vision  of  God. 

2d.  That  all  unbaptized  adults,  and  all  those  who  subsequently 
have  lost  the  grace  of  baptism  by  mortal  sin,  and  die  unreconciled 
to  the  church,  go  immediately  to  hell. 

3d.  That  those  believers  who  have  attained  to  a  state  of  Chris- 
tian perfection  go  immediately  to  heaven. 


438  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

4th.  That  the  great  mass  of  partially  sanctified  Christians  dying 
in  fellowship  with  the  church,  yet  still  encumbered  with  imper- 
fections, go  to  purgatory,  where  they  suffer,  more  or  less  intensely, 
for  a  longer  or  shorter  period,  until  their  sins  are  both  atoned  for 
and  purged  out,  when  they  are  translated  to  heaven,  during  which 
intermediate  period  they  may  be  efficiently  assisted  by  the  prayers 
and  labors  of  their  friends  on  earth. 

5th.  That  Old  Testament  believers  were  gathered  into  a  region 
called  "  limhus  patrum"  where  they  remained  without  the  bea- 
tific vision  of  God,  yet  without  suffering,  until  Christ,  during 
the  three  days  in  which  his  body  lay  in  the  grave,  came  and 
released  them,  1  Pet.  iii.,  19,  20. — Cat.  Eom.,  Part  I.,  Chapter 
VI.,  question  3  ;  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  XXV  de  Purgatorio. 

The  Council  of  Trent  settled  only  two  points,  1st,  that  there 
is  a  purgatory ;  2d,  that  souls  therein  may  be  benefited  by  the 
prayers  and  mass  of  the  church  on  earth. 

It  is  generally  held,  however,  that  its  pains  are  both  negative 
and  positive.  That  the  instrument  of  its  sufierings  is  material 
fire.  That  these  are  dreadful  and  indefinite  in  extent.  That 
satisfaction  may  be  rendered  in  this  world  on  much  easier  terms. 
That  while  their  souls  can  neither  incur  guilt  nor  merit  any  thing 
they  can  alone  render  satisfaction  for  their  sins  by  means  of  pas- 
sive sufferings. 

They  confess  that  this  doctrine  is  not  taught  directly  in  Scrip- 
ture, but  maintain,  1st,  that  it  follows  necessarily  from  their  gen- 
eral doctrine  of  the  satisfaction  for  sins  ;  2d,  that  Christ  and  the 
apostles  taught  it  incidentally  as  they  did  infant  baptism,  etc. 
They  refer  to  Matt,  xii.,  32  ;  1  Cor.  iii.,  15. 

21.  How  may  the  Anti-Christian  character  of  this  doctrine 
he  shoion  ? 

1st.  It  confessedly  has  no  direct,  and  obviously  has  true  foun- 
dation in  Scripture.     This  consideration  alone  suffices. 

2d.  It  proceeds  upon  an  entirely  unchristian  view  of  the 
method  of  satisfying  divine  justice  for  sins.  (1.)  That  while 
Christ's  merits  are  infinite,  they  atone  only  for  original  sins.  (2.) 
That  each  believer  must  make  satisfaction  in  his  own  person  for 
sins  which  he  commits  after  baptism,  either  in  the  pains  of  pen- 
ance or  of  purgatory.     This  is  contrary  to  all  the  Scriptures  teach, 


STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH.  439 

as  we  have  above  shown  under  their  respective  heads,  (1.)  as  to 
the  satisfaction  rendered  to  justice  by  Ohrist  ;  (2.)  the  nature  of 
justification ;  (3.)  nature  of  sin ;  (4.)  relation  of  the  sufferings 
and  good  works  of  the  justified  man  to  the  law  ;  (5.)  state  of  the 
souls  of  believers  after  death,  etc.,  etc. 

3d.  It  is  a  heathen  doctrine  derived  from  the  Egyptians 
through  the  Greeks  and  Eomans,  and  currently  received  through 
the  Roman  empire. — Virgil's  Eneid,  vi.,  739,  43. 

4th.  Its  practical  effects  have  always  been,  1st,  the  abject  sub- 
jection of  ihe  people  to  the  priesthood;  2d,  the  gross  demoralization 
of  the  people.  The  church  is  the  self-appointed  depository  and 
dispenser  of  the  superabundant  merits  of  Christ,  and  the  super- 
erogatory merits  of  her  eminent  saints.  On  this  foundation  she 
dispenses  the  pains  of  purgatory  to  those  who  pay  for  past  sins, 
or  sells  indulgences  to  those  who  pay  for  the  liberty  to  sin  in  the 
future.  Thus  the  people  sin  and  pay,  and  the  priest  takes  the 
money  and  remits  the  penalty.  The  figment  of  a  purgatory  un- 
der the  control  of  the  priest  is  the  main  source  of  his  hold  upon 
the  fears  of  the  people. 


CHAPTER     XXXV. 

THE      RESURRECTION. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  resurrection  of  the 
dead,"  and  "from  the  dead,"  as  used  in  Scripture  ? 

'Avdaraaig  signifies  etymologically  "a  rising  or  raising  up." 
It  is  used  in  Scripture  to  designate  the  future  general  raising,  by 
the  power  of  God,  of  the  bodies  of  all  men  from  the  sleep  of 
death. 

2.  What  Old  Testament  passages  bear  upon  this  subject  ? 
Job  xix.,  25-27 ;  Ps.  xlix.,  15  ;  Is.  xxvi.,  19  ;  Dan,  xii.,  1-3. 

3.  What  are  the  principal  passages  bearing  upon  this  subject 
in  the  Neiv  Testament  ? 

Matt,  v.,  29  ;  x.,  28  ;  xxvii.,  .52,  53  ;  John  v.,  28,  29  ;  vi., 
39  ;  Acts  ii.,  25-34  ;  xiii.,  34  ;  Eom.  viii.,  11,  22,  23  ;  Phil,  iii., 
20,  21  ;  1  Thess.  iv.,  13-17,  and  15th  chap,  of  1  Cor. 

4.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrases,  oajfj-a  ipvxiKov^  natural 
body,  and  adfia  TTvevnarLKov ^  spiritual  body,  as  used  by  Paul,  1 
Cor.  XV.,  44  ? 

The  word  V^%^,  when  contrasted  with  nvSviia,  always  desig- 
nates the  principle  of  animal  life,  as  distinguished  from  the  prin- 
ciple of  intelligence  and  moral  agency,  which  is  the  -nvtviia.  A 
aw/xa  xpvxiiibvj  translated  natural  body,  evidently  means  a  body 
endowed  with  animal  life,  and  adapted  to  the  present  condition 
of  the  soul,  and  to  the  present  physical  constitution  of  the  world 
it  inhabits.  A  awjua  TTvevnariKov^  translated  spiritual  body,  is  a 
body  adapted  to  the  use  of  the  soul  in  its  future  glorified  estate, 
and  to  the  moral  and  physical  conditions  of  the  heavenly  world, 


LITERAL    RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST.  441 

and  to  this  end  assimilated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  dwells  in  it, 
to  the  glorified  body  of  Christ,  1  Cor.  xv.,  45-48. 

5.  How  does  it  appear  that  the  same  body  is  to  rise  that  is 
deposited  in  the  grave  ? 

The  passages  of  Scripture  which  treat  of  this  subject  make  it 
plain  that  the  same  bodies  are  to  be  raised  that  are  deposited  in 
the  grave,  by  the  phrases  by  W'hich  they  designate  the  bodies 
raised  :  1st,  "  our  bodies,"  Phil,  iii.,  21  ;  2d,  "  this  corruptible," 
1  Cor.  XV.,  53,  54  ;  3d,  "  all  who  are  in  their  graves,"  John  v., 
28  ;  4th,  "  they  who  are  asleep,"  1  Thess.  iv.,  13-17 ;  5th,  "  our 
bodies  are  the  members  of  Christ,"  1  Cor.  vi.,  15 ;  6th,  our 
resurrection  is  to  be  because  of  and  like  that  of  Christ,  which  was 
of  his  identical  body,  John  xx.,  27. 

6.  Hoto  does  it  appear  that  the  final  resurrection  is  to  be 
simultaneous  and  general  ? 

See  below.  Chap.  XXXVI.,  questions  9  and  10. 

7.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
resurrection  body  f 

1st.  It  is  to  be  spiritual,  1  Cor.  xv.,  44.  See  above,  question 
4.  2d.  It  is  to  be  like  Christ's  body,  Phil,  iii.,  21.  3d.  Glori- 
ous, incorruptible  and  powerful,  1  Cor.  xv.,  54.  4th.  It  shall 
never  die.  Rev,  xxi.,  4.  5th.  Never  be  given  in  marriage.  Matt, 
xxii.,  30. 

8.  Hoio  may  it  be  proved  that  the  material  body  of  Christ 
rose  from  the  dead  ? 

1st.  Christ  predicted  it,  John  ii.,  19-21.  2d.  His  resurrection 
is  referred  to  as  a  miraculous  attestation  of  the  truth  of  his  mis- 
sion, but  unless  his  body  rose  literally  there  was  nothing  miracu- 
lous in  his  continued  life.  3d.  The  whole  language  of  the  in- 
spired narratives  necessarily  implies  this,  the  rolling  away  of  the 
stone,  the  folding  up  of  the  garments,  etc.  4th.  He  did  not  rise 
until  the  third  day,  which  proves  that  it  was  a  physical  change, 
and  not  a  mere  continuance  of  spiritual  existence,  1  Cor.  xv.,  4 
5th.  His  body  was  seen,  handled  and  examined,  for  the  space  of 


44Q  THE   KESURRECTION. 

forty  days,  in  order  to  establish  this  very  fact,  Luke  xxiv.,  39. — 
Dr.  Hodge. 

9.  How  can  the  materiality  of  Christ's  resurrection  body  he 
reconciled  loith  what  is  said  as  to  the  modes  of  its  manifestation, 
and  of  its  ascension  into  heaven  ? 

The  events  of  his  suddenly  appearing  and  vanishing  from 
sight,  recorded  in  Luke  xxiv.,  31  ;  John  xx.,  19  ;  Acts  i.,  9,  were 
accomplished  through  a  miraculous  interference  with  the  ordinary 
laws  regulating  material  bodies,  of  the  same  kind  precisely  with 
many  miracles  which  Jesus  wrought  in  his  body  before  his  death, 
e.  g.,  his  walking  on  the  sea,  Matt,  xiv,,  25  ;  John  vi.,  9-14. 

10.  Moio  does  the  resurrection  of  Christ  secure  and  illustrate 
that  of  his  people  ? 

Body  and  soul  together  constitute  the  one  person,  and  man 
in  his  entire  person,  and  not  his  soul  separately,  is  embraced  in 
both  the  covenants  of  works  and  of  grace,  and  in  federal  and  vital 
union  with  both  the  first  and  the  second  Adam.  Christ's  resur- 
rection secures  ours,  1st,  because  his  resurrection  seals  and  con- 
summates his  redemptive  power  ;  and  the  redemption  of  our  per- 
sons involves  the  redemption  of  our  bodies,  Eom.  viii.,  23.  2d. 
Because  of  our  federal  and  vital  union  with  Christ,  1  Cor.  xv., 
21,  22  ;  1  Thess.  iv.,  14.  3d.  Because  of  his  Spirit,  which  dwells 
in  us,  (Rom.  viii.,  11,)  making  our  bodies  his  members,  1  Cor.  vi., 
15.  4th.  Because  Christ  by  covenant  is  Lord  both  of  the  living 
and  the  dead,  Rom.  xiv.,  9.  This  same  federal  and  vital  union 
of  the  Christian  with  Christ  (see  above.  Chap.  XXVIII.)  like- 
wise causes  the  resurrection  of  the  believer  to  be  similar  to,  as 
well  as  consequent  upon  that  of  Christ,  1  Cor.  xv.,  49  ;  Phil,  iii., 
21  ;  1  John  iii.,  2. 

11.  How  far  are  objections  of  a  scientific  character  against 
the  doct7'ine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  entitled  to  weight  ? 

All  truth  is  one,  and  of  God,  and  necessarily  consistent, 
whether  revealed  by  means  of  the  phenomena  of  nature  or  of  the 
words  of  inspiration  On  the  other  hand,  it  follows  from  our  par- 
tial knowledge  and  often  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  data  both 
of  science  and  revelation,  that  w^e  often  are  unable  to  discern  the 


SCIENTIFIC    OBJECTIONS.  443 

harmonies  of  truths  in  reality  intimately  related.  Nothing  can 
be  believed  to  be  true  which  is  clearly  seen  to  be  inconsistent  with 
truth  already  certainly  established.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
the  present  stage  of  our  development,  the  largest  proportion  of 
the  materials  of  our  knowledge  rests  upon  independent  evidence, 
and  are  received  by  us  all  as  certain  on  their  own  respective 
grounds,  although  we  fail  as  yet  to  reconcile  each  fact  with  every 
other  in  the  hamionies  of  their  higher  laws.  The  principles  of 
physical  science  are  to  be  taken  as  true  upon  their  own  ground, 
i.  e.,  so  far  as  they  are  matured,  and  the  testimony  of  revelation 
is  to  be  taken  as  infallible  truth  on  its  own  ground.  The  one 
may  modify  our  interpretation  of  the  other,  but  the  most  certain 
of  all  principles  is  that  a  matured  science  will  always  corroborate 
rightly  interpreted  revelation. 

12.  How  may  the  identity  of  our  future  with  our  'present 
bodies  be  reconciled  ivith  1  Cor.  xv.,  42-50  ? 

In  verses  42-44  this  identity  is  expressly  asserted.  The  body 
is  to  be  the  same,  though  changed  in  these  several  particulars. 
1st.  It  is  noiv  subject  to  corruption,  then  incorruptible.  2d.  It 
is  now  dishonored,  it  will  then  be  glorified.  3d.  It  is  now  weak, 
it  will  then  be  powerful.  4th.  It  is  now  natural,  i.  e.,  adapted 
to  the  i)resent  condition  of  the  soul  and  constitution  of  the  world. 
It  will  then  be  spiritual,  i.  e.,  adapted  to  the  glorified  condition 
of  the  soul,  and  constitution  of  the  "  new  heavens  and  new  eartli." 

Verse  50  declares  simply  that  "  flesh  and  blood,"  that  is,  the 
present  corruj)tible,  weak,  and  depraved  constitution  of  the  body 
can  not  inherit  heaven.  Yet  the  passage  as  a  whole  clearly  teaches 
not  the  substitution  of  a  new  body  but  the  transformation  of 
the  old. 

13.  What  facts  does  physiological  science  establish  with  re- 
spect to  the  perpetual  changes  that  are  going  on  in  our  2^rcsent 
bodies,  and  what  relation  do  these  facts  sustain  to  this  doctrine  'f 

By  a  ceaseless  process  of  the  assimilation  of  new  material  and 
excretion  of  the  old,  the  particles  composing  our  bodies  are  cease- 
lessly changing  from  birth  to  death,  effecting,  as  it  is  computed, 
a  change  in  every  atom  of  the  entire  structure  every  seven  years. 


444  THE   RESURRECTION. 

Thus  there  will  not  be  a  particle  in  the  organism  of  an  adult 
which  constituted  part  of  his  person  when  a  boy,  nor  in  that  of 
the  old  man  of  that  which  belonged  to  him  when  of  middle  age. 
The  body  from  youth  to  age  is  universally  subject  to  vast  changes 
in  size,  form,  expression,  condition,  and  many  times  to  total 
change  of  constituent  particles.  All  this  is  certain  ;  but  it  is 
none  the  less  certain  that  through  all  these  changes  the  man  pos- 
sesses identically  the  same  person  from  youth  to  age.  This 
proves  that  neither  the  identity  of  the  body  of  the  same  man  from 
youth  to  age,  nor  the  identity  of  our  present  with  our  resuri'ection 
bodies  consist  in  sameness  of  particles.  If  we  are  sure  of  our 
identity  in  the  one  case,  we  need  not  stumble  at  the  diflSculties 
attending  the  other. 

14.  What  objection  to  this  doctrine  is  derived  from  the  known 
fact  of  the  dispersion  and  assimilation  into  other  organisms  of 
the  particles  of  our  bodies  after  death  ? 

The  instant  the  vital  princijjle  surrenders  the  elements  of  the 
body  to  the  unmodified  control  of  the  laws  of  chemical  affinity, 
their  present  combinations  are  dissolved  and  distributed  through- 
out space,  and  they  are  taken  up  and  assimilated  by  other  animal 
and  vegetable  organisms.  Thus  the  same  particles  have  formed, 
at  different  times,  part  of  the  bodies  of  myriads  of  men,  in  the 
successive  periods  of  the  growth  of  individuals,  and  in  successive 
generations.  Hence  it  has  been  objected  to  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  that  it  will  be  imjjossible 
to  decide  to  which  of  the  thousand  bodies  which  these  particles 
have  formed  part  in  turn,  they  should  be  assigned  in  the  resur- 
rection ;  or  to  reinvest  each  soul  with  its  own  body,  when  all  the 
constituent  elements  of  every  body  have  been  shared  in  common 
by  many.  We  ansioer  that  bodily  identity  does  not  consist  in 
sameness  of  constituent  particles.  See  above,  question  13.  Just 
as  God  has  revealed  to  us  through  consciousness  that  our  bodies 
are  identical  from  infancy  to  age,  although  their  constituent  ele- 
ments often  change,  he  has,  with  equal  certainty  and  reasonable- 
ness, revealed  to  us  in  his  insj)ired  word  that  our  bodies,  raised  in 
glory,  are  identical  with  our  bodies  sown  in  dishonor,  although 
their  constituent  particles  may  have  been  scattered  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth. 


PERSONAL   IDENTITY.  445 

15.    TFJiat  is  essential  to  identity  ? 

1st.  "  It  is  evident  that  identity  depends  upon  diflfercnt  condi- 
tions in  different  cases.  The  identity  of  a  stone  or  any  other  por- 
tion of  unorganized  matter  consists  in  its  substance  and  form.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  identity  of  a  plant  from  the  seed  to  its  maturity 
is,  in  a  great  measure,  independent  of  sameness  of  substance  or  of 
form.  Their  identity  appears  to  consist  in  each  plant's  being  one 
organized  whole,  and  in  the  continuity  of  the  succession  of  its 
elements  and  parts.  The  identity  of  a  picture  does  not  depend 
upon  the  sameness  of  the  particles  of  coloring  matter  of  which  it 
is  composed,  for  these  we  may  conceive  to  be  continually  chang- 
ing, but  upon  the  drawing,  the  tints,  the  light  and  shade,  the 
expression,  the  idea  which  it  embodies,"  etc. 

2d.  Bodily  identity  is  not  a  conclusion  drawn  from  the  com- 
parison, or  combination  of  other  facts,  but  it  is  itself  a  single  irre- 
solvable fact  of  consciousness.  The  child,  the  savage,  the  philo- 
sopher, are  alike  certain  of  the  sameness  of  their  bodies  at  different 
periods  of  their  lives,  and  on  the  same  grounds.  This  intuitive 
conviction,  as  it  is  not  the  result  of  science,  so  it  is  no  more  bound 
to  give  an  account  of  itself  to  science,  i.  e.,  we  are  no  more  called 
upon  to  explain  it  before  we  believe  it  than  we  are  to  explain  any 
other  of  the  simple  data  of  consciousness. 

3d.  The  resurrection  of  our  bodies,  although  a  certain  fact  of 
revelation,  is  to  us,  as  yet,  an  unrealized  experience,  an  unob- 
served phenomenon.  The  2:)hysical  conditions,  therefore,  of  the 
identity  of  our  "spiritual  bodies"  with  our  "natural  bodies,"  we 
can  not  now  possibly  comprehend,  since  we  have  neither  the  ex- 
perience, the  observation,  nor  the  revelation  of  the  facts  involved 
in  such  knowledge.  This  much,  however,  is  certain  as  to  the  re- 
sult, 1st.  The  body  of  the  resurrection  will  be  as  strictly  identical 
with  the  body  of  death,  as  the  body  of  death  is  with  the  body  of 
birth.  2d.  Each  soul  will  have  an  indubitable  intuitive  con- 
sciousness that  its  new  body  is  identical  with  the  old.  3d.  Each 
friend  shall  recognize  the  individual  characteristics  of  the  soul  in 
the  perfectly  transparent  expression  of  the  new  body. — Dr.  Hodge. 

16.  How  far  was  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
held  by  the  Jews  ? 

With  the  exception  of  some  heretical  sects,  as  the  Sadducees, 


446  THE    RESURRECTION, 

the  Jews  held  this  doctrine  in  the  same  sense  in  which  we  hold  it 
now.  This  is  evident,  1st,  Because  it  was  clearly  revealed  in  their 
inspired  writings,  see  above,  question  2.  2d.  It  is  affirmed  in 
their  uninspired  writings.  Wisdom,  iii.,  6,  13  ;  iv.,  15  ;  2  Mac- 
cabees vii.,  9, 14,  23,  29.  3d.  Christ  in  his  discources,  instead  of 
proving  this  doctrine,  assumes  it  as  recognized,  Luke  xiv,,  14 ; 
John  v.,  28,  29.  4th.  Paul  asserts  that  both  the  ancient  Jews, 
(Heb.  xi.,  35,)  and  his  own  cotemporaries,  (Acts  xxiv.,  15,)  be- 
lieved this  doctrine. 

17.  What  early  heretical  sects  in  the  Christian  church  re- 
jected this  doctrine  ? 

All  the  sects  bearing  the  generic  designation  of  gnostic,  and  un- 
der various  specific  names  embodying  the  leaven  of  oriental  phil- 
osophy, which  infested  the  church  of  Christ  from  the  beginning 
for  many  centuries,  believed,  1st,  that  matter  is  essentially  vile, 
and  the  source  of  all  sin  and  misery  to  the  soul ;  2d,  that  com- 
plete sanctification  is  consummated  only  in  the  dissolution  of  the 
body  and  the  emancipation  of  the  soul ;  3d,  that  consequently  any 
literal  resurrection  of  the  body  is  repugnant  to  the  spirit,  and 
would  be  destructive  to  the  purpose  of  the  whole  gospel. 

18.  What  is  the  doctrine  taught  hy  Swedenhorg  on  this  subject  ? 

It  is  substantially  the  same  with  that  set  forth  by  Professor 
Bush  in  his  once  famous  book,  "  Auastasia."  They  teach  that 
the  literal  body  is  dissolved,  and  finally  perishes  in  death.  But 
by  a  subtle  law  of  our  nature  an  etherial,  luminous  body  is  elim- 
inated out  of  the  i^vxr]  (the  seat  of  the  nervous  sensibility,  oc- 
cupying the  middle  link  between  matter  and  spirit),  so  that  the 
soul  docs  not  go  forth  from  its  tabernacle  of  flesh  a  bare  power  of 
thought,  but  is  clothed  upon  at  once  by  this  psychical  body. 
This  resurrection  of  the  body,  they  pretend,  takes  place  in  every 
case  immediately  at  death,  and  accompanies  the  outgoing  soul. 

19.  Hota  do  modern  rationalists  explain  the  passages  of 
Scripture  lohich  relate  to  this  subject  ? 

They  explain  them  away,  denying  their  plain  sense,  either,  1st, 
as  purely  allegorical  modes  of  inculcating  the  truth  of  the  con- 
tinued existence  of  the  soul  after  death  ;  or,  2d,  as  concessions  to 
the  prejudices  and  superstitions  of  the  Jews. 


CHAPTER    XXXVI. 

THE     SECOND     ADVENT     AND     GENERAL      JUDGMENT, 

1.  What  it  the  meaning  of  the  expressions  "  the  coming,"  or 
"  the  day  of  the  Lord"  as  used  in  both  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments ? 

1st.  For  any  special  manifestation  of  God's  presence  and 
power,  John  xiv.,  18,  23  ;  Is.  xiii.,  6  ;  Jer.  xlvi.,  10.  2d.  By- 
way of  eminence.  (1.)  In  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  coming 
of  Christ  in  the  flesh,  and  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  economy, 
Malachi  iii.,  2  ;  iv.,  5.  (2.)  In  the  New  Testament,  for  the 
second  and  final  coming  of  Christ. 

The  several  terms  referring  to  this  last  great  event  are,  Ist, 
dnoKaXv^L^,  revelation,  1  Cor.  i.,  7  ;  2  Thess.  i.,  7  ;  1  Pet.  i,, 
7,  13  ;  iv.,  13.  2d.  naQovaia,  presence,  advent.  Matt,  xxiv.,  3,  27, 
37,  39  ;  1  Cor.  xv.,  23  ;  1  Thess.  ii.,  19  ;  iii.,  13  ;  iv,  15 ;  v.,  23  ;  2 
Thess.  ii.,  1-9  ;  James  v.,  7,  8  ;  2  Pet.  i.,  16  ;  iii.,  4,  12  ;  1  John 
ii.,  28.  3d.  emcpdveia,,  appearance,  manifestation,  2  Thess.  ii., 
8  ;  1  Tim.  vi.,  14  ;  2  Tim.  iv.,  1,  8  ;  Titus  ii.,  13. 

The  time  of  that  coming  is  designated  as  "  the  day  of  God," 
2  Pet.  iii.,  12.  "  The  day  of  the  Lord,"  1  Thess.  v.,  2.  "  The 
day  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  of  Jesus  Christ,"  1  Cor.  i.,  8  ;  Phil, 
i.,  6,  10  ;  2  Pet.  iii.,  10.  "  That  day,"  2  Thess.  i.,  10  ;  2  Tim. 
i.,  12,  18.  "  The  last  day,"  John  vi.,  39-54.  "  The  great  day," 
"  the  day  of  wrath,"  and  "  of  judgment,"  and  "  of  revelation," 
Jude  6  ;  Rev.  vi.,  17  ;  Rom.  ii.,  5 ;  2  Pet.  ii.,  9. 

Christ  is  called  6  t'()%6/z£vo?-,  the  coming  one,  with  reference  U' 
both  advents.  Matt,  xxi.,  9  ;  Luke  vii.,  19,  20 ;  xix.,  38  -  John 
iii.,  31  ;  Rev.  i.,  4 ;  iv.  8  ;  xi.,  17. 

2.  Present  the  evidence  that  a  literal  personal  advent  cf  Christ 
still  future  is  taught  in  the  Bible. 


448  SECOND    ADVENT, 

1st.  The  anology  of  the  first  advent.  The  prophecies  relating 
to  the  one  having  been  literally  fulfilled  by  a  personal  coming, 
we  may  be  certain  that  the  perfectly  similar  prophecies  relating 
to  the  other  will  be  fulfilled  in  the  same  sense. 

2d.  The  language  of  Christ  predicting  such  advent  admits  of 
no  other  rational  interpretation.  The  coming  itself,  its  manner 
and  purpose,  are  alike  defined.  He  is  to  be  attended  with  the 
hosts  of  heaven,  in  power  and  great  glory.  He  is  to  come  upon 
the  occasion  of  the  general  resurrection  and  judgment,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  consummating  his  mediatorial  work,  by  the  final 
condemnation  and  perdition  of  all  his  enemies,  and  by  the  acknowl- 
edgment and  completed  glorification  of  all  his  friends,  Matt, 
xvi.,  27  ;  xxiv.,  30  ;  xxv.,  31  ;  xxvi.,  64  ;  Mark  viii.,  38  ;  Luke 
xxi.,  27. 

3d.  The  apostles  understood  these  predictions  to  relate  to  a 
literal  advent  of  Christ  in  person.  They  teach  their  disciples 
to  form  the  habit  of  constantly  looking  forward  to  it,  as  a  solem- 
nizing motive  to  fidelity,  and  to  encouragement  and  resignation 
under  present  trials.  They  teach  that  his  coming  will  be  visible 
and  glorious,  accompanied  with  the  abrogation  of  the  present 
gospel  dispensation,  the  destruction  of  his  enemies,  the  glorifica- 
tion of  his  friends,  the  conflagration  of  the  world,  and  the  appear- 
ance of  the  "  new  heaven  and  new  earth."  See  the  passages  quoted 
under  the  preceding  chapter,  and  Acts,  i,,  11  ;  iii.,  19-21  ;  1  Cor. 
iv.,  5  ;  xi.,  26  ;  xv.,  23  ;  Heb.  ix.,  28  ;  x.,  37,— Dr,  Hodge's 
Lecture. 

3,  What  three  modes  of  interpretation  have  been  adopted  in 
reference  to  Matt,  xxiv  and  xxv,  ? 

"  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  these  chapters  contain  an  answer 
to  three  distinct  questions.  1st.  When  the  temple  and  city  were 
to  be  destroyed.  2d.  What  were  to  be  the  signs  of  Christ's  com- 
ing ?  3d.  The  third  question  related  to  the  end  of  the  Avorld. 
The  difficulty  consists  in  separating  the  portions  relating  to  these 
several  questions.  There  are  three  methods  adopted  in  the  ex- 
planation of  these  chapters.  1st.  The  first  assumes  that  they 
refer  exclusively  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  polity,  and  the 
establishment  and  progress  of  the  gospel.  2d.  The  second  assumes 
that  what  is  here  said  has  been  fulfilled  in  one  sense  in  the  des- 


FACT  CLEARLY  REVEALED.  449 

truction  of  Jerusalem,  and  is  to  be  fulfilled  in  a  higher  sense  at 
the  last  day.  3d.  The  third  supposes  that  some  portions  refer 
exclusively  to  the  former  event  and  others  exclusively  to  the  lat- 
ter. It  is  plain  that  the  first  view  is  untenable,  and  whether  the 
second  or  third  view  be  adopted,  the  obscurity  resting  upon  this 
passage  can  not  properly  be  allowed  to  lead  us  to  reject  the  clear 
and  constant  teaching  of  jthe  New  Testament  with  regard  to  the 
second  personal  and  visible  advent  of  the  Son  of  God." — Dr. 
Hodge. 

4.  In  what  passages  is  the  time  of  Christ's  second  advent  de- 
clared to  he  unknown  f 

Matt,  xxiv.,  36  ;  Mark  xiii.,  32  ;  Luke  xii.,  40 ;  Acts  i.,  6,  7 ; 
1  Thess.  v.,  1-3  ;  2  Pet.  iii.,  3,  4,  10 ;  Kev.  xvi.,  15. 

I  5.  What  passages  are  commonly  cited  in  proof  that  the  apos- 

tles expected  the  second  advent  during  their  lives  ? 

Phil,  i.,  6  ;  1  Thess.  iv.,  15  ;  Heb.  x.,  25 ;  1  Pet.  i.,  5 ; 
James  v.,  8. 

6.  How  may  it  he  shoivn  that  they  did  not  entertain  such  an 
expectation  '^ 

1st.  The  apostles,  as  individuals,  apart  from  their  public 
capacity  as  inspired  teachers,  were  subject  to  the  common  preju- 
dices of  their  age  and  nation,  and  only  gradually  were  brought 
to  the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth.  During  Christ's  life  they  ex- 
pected that  he  would  establish  his  kingdom  in  its  glory  at  that 
time,  Luke  xxiv.,  21 ;  and  after  his  resurrection  the  first  question 
they  asked  him  was,  "  Wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  the  king- 
dom to  Israel  ?" 

2d.  In  their  inspired  writings  they  have  never  taught  that  the 
second  coming  of  their  Lord  was  to  occur  in  their  life-time,  or  at 
any  fixed  time  whatever.  They  only  taught  (1.)  that  it  ought  to 
be  habitually  desired,  and  (2.)  since  it  is  uncertain  as  to  time, 
that  it  should  always  be  regarded  as  imminent. 

3d.  As  further  revelations  were  vouchsafed  to  them,  they 
learned,  and  explicitly  taught,  that  the  time  of  the  second  advent 
was  not  only  uncertain,  but  that  many  events,  still  future,  must 

29 


450  SECOND    ADVENT. 

previously  occur,  e.  g.,  the  anti-Christian  apostasy,  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel  to  every  nation,  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles,  the  con- 
version of  the  Jews,  the  millenial  prosperity  of  the  church,  and 
the  final  defection,  Rom.  xi.,  15-32  ;  2  Cor.  iii.,  15,  16 ;  2  Thcss. 
ii.,  3.  This  is  clear,  because  the  coming  of  Christ  is  declared  to 
be  attended  with  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  general  judg- 
ment, the  general  conflagration,  and  the  restitution  of  all  things. 
See  below,  question  9. 

7.  What  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  concerning  the  millenium  '^ 
1st.  The  Scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 

clearly  reveal  that  the  gospel  is  to  exercise  an  influence  over  all 
branches  of  the  human  family,  immeasurably  moi-e  extensive  and 
more  thoroughly  transforming  than  any  it  has  ever  realized  in 
time  past.  This  end  is  to  be  gradually  attained  through  the  spir- 
itual presence  of  Christ  in  the  ordinary  dispensation  of  Providence, 
and  ministrations  of  his  church.  Matt,  xiii.,  31,  32  ;  xxviii.,  19, 
20  ;  Ps.  ii.,  7,  8  ;  xxii.,  27,  29  ;  Ixxii.,  8-11 ;  Is.  ii.,  2,  3  ;  xi.,  6-9 ; 
Ix.,  12  ;  Ixvi.,  23  ;  Dan.  ii.,  35,  44  ;  Zech.  ix.,  10  ;  xiv.,  9 ;  Rev. 
xi.,  15. 

2d.  The  period  of  this  general  prevalency  of  the  gospel  will 
continue  a  thousand  years,  and  is  hence  designated  the  millenium. 
Rev.  XX.,  2-7. 

3d.  The  Jews  are  to  be  converted  to  Christianity  either  at  the 
commencement  or  during  the  continuance  of  this  period,  Zech. 
xii.,  10  ;  xiii.,  1 ;  Rom.  xi.,  26-29  ;  2  Cor.  iii.,  15,  16. 

4th.  At  the  end  of  these  thousand  years,  and  before  the  com- 
ing of  Christ,  there  will  be  a  comparatively  short  season  of  apos- 
tasy and  violent  conflict  between  the  kingdoms  of  light  and  dark- 
ness, Luke  xvii.,  26-30  ;  2  Pet.  iii.,  3,  4  ;  Rev.  xx.,  7-9. 

5th.  Christ's  advent,  the  general  resurrection  and  judgment, 
will  be  simultaneous,  and  immediately  succeeded  by  the  buniing 
of  the  old,  and  the  revelation  of  the  new  earth  and  heavens. 
Confession  of  Faith  Chapts.  XXXII  and  XXXIII. 

8.  What  is  the  view  of  those  ivho  maintain  that  Christ's  com- 
ing ivUl  he  ^'jiremillenial,"  and  tlmt  he  iviJl  reign  personally 
upon  the  earth  a  thousand  years  before  the  judgment? 

Ist.  Many  of  the  Jews,  mistaking  altogether  the  spiritual  char- 
acter of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  entertained  the  opinion  that  as 


PREMILLENIAL   THEORY.  451 

the  church  had  continued  two  thousand  years  before  the  givino- 
of  the  law,  so  it  would  continue  two  thousand  years  under  the 
law,  when  the  Messiah  would  commence  his  personal  reign,  which 
should,  in  turn,  continue  two  thousand  years  to  the  commence- 
ment of  the  eternal  Sabbath.  They  expected  that  the  Messiah 
would  reign  visibly  and  gloriously  in  Jerusalem,  as  his  capital, 
over  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  the  Jews,  as  his  especial  people, 
being  exalted  to  preeminent  dignity  and  privilege. 

2d.  The  majority  of  the  early  fathers  of  the  Christian  church 
adopted  this  view  in  its  essential  elements,  adapting  it  to  the 
literal  interpretation  of  Eev.  xx.,  1-10.  They  held,  1st.  That 
after  the  development  of  the  Anti-Christian  apostasy,  at  some 
time  very  variously  estimated,  Christ  was  suddenly  to  appear  and 
commence  his  personal  reign  of  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem. 
The  dead  in  Christ  (some  say  only  the  martyrs)  were  then  to  rise 
and  reign  with  him  in  the  world,  the  majority  of  whose  inhabitants 
shall  be  converted,  and  live  during  this  period  in  great  prosperity 
and  happiness,  the  Jews  in  the  mean  time  being  converted,  and 
restored  to  their  own  land.  (2.)  That  after  the  thousand  years 
there  shall  come  the  final  apostasy  for  a  little  season,  and  then 
the  resurrection  of  the  rest  of  the  dead,  i.  e.,  the  wicked  and  their 
judgment  and  condemnation  at  the  last  day,  the  final  conflagra- 
tion, and  new  heavens  and  earth. 

3d,  Modern  premillenarians,  while  difiering  among  themselves 
as  to  the  details  of  their  interpretations,  agree  substantially  with 
the  view  just  stated.  Hence  they  are  called  Premillenarians,  be- 
cause thf;y  believe  the  advent  of  Christ  will  occur  be/ore  the 
MiUenium. 

9.  What  are  the  principal  Scriptural  arguments  against  thin 
view  ? 

1st.  The  theory  is  evidently  Jewish  in  its  origin  and  Jew- 
daizing  in  its  tendency. 

2d.  It  is  not  consistent  with  what  the  Scriptures  teach.  (1.) 
As  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  e.  g.,  a  that  it  is  not  of 
this  world  but  spiritual.  Matt,  xiii.,  11-44 ;  John  xviii.,  36  ; 
Rom.  xiv.,  17  ;  b  that  it  was  not  to  be  confined  to  the  Jews, 
Matt,  viii.,  11,  12  ;  c  that  regeneration  is  the  condition  of  admis- 
sion to  it,  John  iii.;,  3,5 ;  d  that  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  are 


452  SECOND   ADVENT. 

purely  spiritual^  as  pardon,  sanctification,  etc.,  Matt,  iii.,  2,  11 ; 
Col.  i.,  13,  14.  (2.)  As  to  the  fact  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
has  already  come.  He  has  sat  upon  the  throne  of  his  Father 
David  ever  since  his  ascension,  Acts  ii.,  29-36  ;  iii.,  13-15  ; 
iv.,  26-28  ;  v.,  29-31  ;  Heb.  x.,  12,  13  ;  Rev.  iii.,  7-12.  The 
Old  Testament  prophecies,  therefore,  which  predict  this  kingdom 
must  refer  to  the  present. disj)ensation  of  grace,  and  not  to  a 
future  reign  of  Christ  on  earth  in  person  among  men  in  the  flesh. 

3d.  The  second  advent  is  not  to  occur  until  the  resurrection, 
when  all  the  dead,  both  good  and  bad,  are  to  rise  at  once,  Dan, 
xii.,  2  ;  John  v.,  28,  29  ;  1  Cor.  xv.,  23  ;  1  Thes.  iv.,  16  ;  Rev. 
XX.,  11-15.  Only  one  passage,  (Rev.  xx.,  1-10,)  is  even  appar- 
ently inconsistent  with  the  fact  here  asserted.  For  the  true  inter- 
pretation of  that  passage  see  next  question. 

4th.  The  second  advent  is  not  to  occur  until  the  simultaneous 
judgment  of  all  men,  the  good  and  the  bad  together,  Matt,  vii., 
21,  23  ;  xiii.,  30-43  ;  xvi.,  24,  27  ;  xxv.,  31-46  ;  Rom.  ii.,  5,  16; 
1  Cor.  iii.,  12-15  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  9-11 ;  2  Thes.  i.,  6-10  ;  Rev.  xx., 
11-15. 

5th.  The  second  advent  is  to  be  attended  witb  the  general 
couflagration,  and  the  generation  of  the  "  new  heavens  and  the 
new  earth,"  2  Pet.  iii.,  7-13  ;  Rev.  xx.,  11  ;  xxi.,  1. — "  Brown 
on  the  Second  Advent." 

10.  What  considerations  favor  the  spwitual  and  oppose  the 
literal  interpretation  of  Rev.  xx.,  1-10  ? 

The  spiritual  interpretation  of  this  difficult  passage  is  as  fol- 
lows :  Christ  has  in  reseive  for  his  church  a  period  of  universal 
expansion  and  of  preeminent  spiritual  prosperity,  when  the  spirit 
and  character  of  the  "  noble  army  of  martyrs"  shall  be  repro- 
duced again  in  the  great  body  of  God's  people  in  an  unprece- 
dented measure,  and  when  tJicse  martyrs  shall,  in  the  general 
triumph  of  their  cause,  and  in  the  overthrow  of  that  of  their 
enemies,  receive  judgment  over  their  foes  and  reign  in  the  earth  ; 
while  the  party  of  Satan,  "  the  rest  of  the  dead,"  shall  not  flourish 
again  until  the  thousand  years  be  ended,  when  it  shall  prevail 
again  for  a  little  season. 

The  considerations  in  favor  of  this  interpretation  of  the 
passage  are — 


RETURN    OF    THE   JEWS    TO    PALESTINE.  453 

1st.  It  occurs  in  one  of  the  most  highly  figurative  books  of 
the  Bible. 

2d.  This  interpretation  is  perfectly  consistent  with  all  the 
other  more  explicit  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  on  the  several 
points  involved. 

3d.  The  same  figure,  viz.,  that  of  life  again  from  the  dead,  is 
frequently  used  in  Scrij^ture  to  express  the  idea  of  the  spiritual 
revival  of  the  church,  Is.  xxvi.,  19  ;  Ezek,  xxxvii.,  12-14  ;  Hosea 
vi.,  1-3  ;  Rom.  xi.,  15  ;  Rev.  xi.,  11. 

The  considerations  bearing  against  the  literal  interpretation 
of  this  passage  are — 

1st.  That  the  pretended  doctrine  of  two  resurrections,  i.  e. 
first  of  the  righteous,  and  then,  after  an  interval  of  a  thousand 
years,  of  the  wicked,  is  taught  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible,  and 
this  single  passage  in  which  it  occurs  is  an  obscure  one.     This  is 
a  strong  presumption  against  the  truth  of  the  doctrine. 

2d.  It  is  inconsistent  with  what  the  Scriptures  uniformly 
teach  as  to  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body,  i.  e.,  that  it  is  to 
be  "spiritual,"  not  "natural,"  or  "flesh  and  blood,"  1  Cor.  xv. 
44.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  an  essential  jjart  of  the  doctrine  as- 
sociated with  the  literal  interpretation  of  this  passage,  that  the 
saints,  or  at  least  the  martyrs,  are  to  rise  and  reign  a  thousand 
years  in  the  flesh,  and  in  this  world  as  at  present  constituted. 

3d.  The  literal  interpretation  of  this  passage  contradicts  the 
clear  and  uniform  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  that  all  the  dead, 
good  and  bad,  are  to  rise  and  be  judged  together  at  the  second 
coming  of  Christ,  and  the  entire  revolution  of  the  present  order 
of  creation.  See  the  Scripture  testimonies  collected  under  the 
preceding  question. 

11.  Shoio  that  the  future  general  conversion  of  the  Jews  is 
taught  in  Scripture  ? 

This  Paul,  in  Rom.  xi.,  15-29,  both  asserts  and  proves  from 
Old  Testament  prophecies,  e.  g.,  Isa.  lix.,  20  ;  Jer.  xxxi.,  31. 
See  also  Zech.  xii.,  10  ;  2  Cor.  iii.,  15,  16. 

12.  State  the  argument  for  and  against  the  opinion  that  the 
Jews  are  to  he  restored  to  their  own  land  ? 
The  arguments  in  favor  of  that  return  are — 


454  SECOND   ADVENT. 

1st.  The  literal  sense  of  many  old  Testament  prophecies,  Isa. 
xi.,  11,  12  ;  Jer.  iii.,  17  ;  xvi.,  14,  15  ;  Ezek.  xx.,  40-44  ;  xxxiv., 
11-31  ;  xxxvi.j  1-36  ;  Hosea  iii.,  4,  5  ;  Amos  ix.,  11-15  ;  Zech. 
X.,  6-10  ;    xiv.,  1-20  ;  Joel  iii.,  1-17. 

2d.  Tliat  the  whole  territory  promised  by  God  to  Abraham  has 
never  at  any  period  been  fully  possessed  by  his  descendants,  Gen. 
XV.,  18-21  ;  Num.  xxxiv.,  6-12,  and  renewed  through  Ezekiel, 
Ezek.  xlvii.,  1-23. 

3d.  The  land,  though  capable  of  maintaining  a  vast  pojDula- 
tiou,  is  as  preserved  unoccupied,  evidently  waiting  for  inhabitants. 
See  Keith's  "Land  of  Israel." 

4th.  The  Jews,  though  scattered  among  all  nations,  have  been 
miraculously  preserved  a  separate  people,  and  evidently  await  a 
destiny  as  signal  and  peculiar  as  has  been  their  history.  The 
arguments  against  their  return  to  the  land  of  their  fathers  are — 

Ist.  The  New  Testament  is  entirely  silent  on  the  subject  of 
any  such  return,  which  would  be  an  inexplicable  omission  in  the 
clearer  revelation,  if  that  event  is  really  future. 

2d.  The  literal  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  prophe- 
cies concerned  in  this  question  would  be  most  unnatural,  (1.)  Be- 
cause, if  the  interpretation  is  to  be  consistent,  it  must  be  literal 
in  all  its  parts.  Then  if  would  follow  that  David  himself,  in 
person,  must  be  raised  to  reign  again  in  Jerusalem,  Ezek.  xxxvii., 
24,  etc.  Then  the  Levitical  priesthood  must  be  restored,  and 
bloody  sacrifices  offered  to  God,  Ezek.  xl.  to  xlvi.  ;  Jer.  xvii.,  25, 
26.  Then  must  Jerusalem  be  the  center  of  government,  the  Jews 
a  superior  class  in  the  Christian  church,  and  all  worshippers  must 
come  monthly  and  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  from  the  ends  of 
the  earth  to  worship  at  the  Holy  City,  Isa,  ii.,  2,  3  ;  Ixvi.,  20-23  ; 
Zech.  xiv.,  16-21.  (2.)  Because  the  literal  interpretation  thus 
leads  to  the  revival  of  the  entire  ritual  system  of  the  Jews,  and  is 
inconsistent  with  the  spirituality  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  See 
above,  question  9.  (3.)  Because  the  literal  interpretation  of  these 
passages  is  inconsistent  with  what  the  New  Testament  plainly 
teaches  as  to  the  abolition  of  all  distinctions  between  the  Jew  and 
Gentile  ;  the  Jews,  when  converted,  are  to  be  grafted  back  into 
the  same  church,  Rom.  xi.,  19-24  ;  Eph,  ii.,  13-19.  (4.)  Because 
this  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with  what  the  New  Testament 
teaches  as  to  the  temporary  purpose,  the  virtual  insufficiency. 


GENERAL   JUDGMENT.  455 

and  the  final  abolition  of  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  their  sacri- 
fices, and  of  the  infinite  sufficiency  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and 
the  eternity  of  his  priesthood,  Gal.  iv.,  9,  10  ;  v.,  4-8  Col.  ii., 
16-23  ;  Heb.  vii.,  12-18  ;  viii.,  7-13 ;  ix.,  1-14. 

3d.  On  the  other  hand,  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  these 
Old  Testament  prophecies — which  regards  them  as  predicting  the 
future  purity  and  extension  of  the  Christian  church,  and  as  indi- 
cating these  spiritual  subjects  by  means  of  those  persons,  places 
and  ordinances  of  the  old  economy  which  were  typical  of  them — 
is  both  natural  and  accordant  to  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  In 
the  New  Testament,  Christians  are  called  Abram's  seed,  Gal.  iii., 
29  ;  Israelites,  Gal.  vi.,  16,  Eph.  ii.,  12,  19  ;  comers  to  Mount 
Zion,  Heb.  xii.,  22  ;  citizens  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  Gal.  iv., 
26  ;  the  circumcision,  Phil,  iii.,  3,  Coh  ii.,  11,  and  in  Kev.  ii.,  9, 
they  are  called  Jews.  There  is  also  a  Christian  priesthood  and 
spiritual  sacrifice,  1  Pet.  ii.,  5,  9  ;  Heb.  xiii.,  15,  16  ;  Rom.  xii., 
1.     See  Fairbairn's  Typology  Appendix,  Vol.  I. 

13.  Who  is  to  be  the  judge  of  the  world? 

Jesus  Christ,  in  his  ofiicial  character  as  Mediator,  in  both  na- 
tures, as  the  God-man.  This  is  evident,  1st,  because  as  judge  he 
is  called  the  "  Son  of  Man,"  Matt,  xxv.,  31,  32,  and  the  "  man 
ordained  by  God,"  Acts  xvii.,  31.  2d.  Because  all  judgment  is 
said  to  be  committed  to  him  by  the  Father,  John  v.,  22,  27.  3d. 
Because  it  pertains  to  him  as  Mediator  to  complete  and  publicly 
manifest  the  salvation  of  his  people,  and  the  overthrow  of  his  ene- 
mies, together  with  the  glorious  righteousness  of  his  work  in  both 
respects,  2  Thess.  i.,  7-10  ;  Eev.  i.,  7  ;  and  thus  accomplish  the 
"  restitution  of  all  things,"  Acts  iii.,  21,  And  this  he  shall  do  in 
his  own  person,  that  his  glory  may  be  the  more  manifest,  the 
discomfiture  of  his  enemies  the  more  humiliating,  and  the  hope 
and  joy  of  his  redeemed  the  more  complete. 

14.  Who  are  to  he  the  subjects  of  the  judgment  'i 

1st.  The  whole  race  of  Adam,  without  exception,  of  every  gen- 
eration, condition  and  character,  each  individual  appearing  in  the 
integrity  of  his  person,  "  body,  soul  and  spirit."  The  dead  will 
be  raised,  and  the  living  changed  simultaneously,  Matt,  xxv., 


456  SECOND   ADVENT. 

31-46  ;  1  Cor.  xv.,  51,  52  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  10 ;  1  Thess.  iv.,  17 ;  2 
Thess.  i.,  6-10 ;  Kev.  xx.,  11-15.  2d.  All  evil  angels,  2  Pet.  ii., 
4 ;  Jude  6.  Good  angels  appearing  as  attendants  and  ministers, 
Matt,  xiii.,  41,  42. 

15.  In  loJiat  sense  is  it  said  that  the  saints  shall  judge  ike 
world  'i 

See  Matt,  xix.,  28  ;  Luke  xxii.,  29,  30  ;  1  Cor.  vi.,  2,  3  ; 
Kev.  XX.,  4. 

In  virtue  of  the  union  of  believers  with  Christ,  his  triumph 
and  dominion  is  theirs.  They  are  joint  heirs  with  him,  and  if 
they  suffer  with  him  they  shall  reign  with  him,  Rom.  viii.,  17 ;  2 
Tim.  ii.,  12.  He  will  judge  and  condemn  his  enemies  as  head  and 
champion  of  his  church,  all  his  members  assenting  to  his  judg- 
ment and  glorying  in  his  triumph.  Rev.  xix.,  1-5. — Hodge's  Com. 
on  1st  Cor. 

16.  V'pon  what  principles  will  his  judgment  he  dispensed? 

The  judge  is  figuratively  represented,  (Rev.  xx.,  12,)  after  the 
analogy  of  human  tribunals,  as  opening  "  books  V  in  judgment,  ac- 
cording to  the  things  written  in  which  the  dead  are  to  be  judged, 
and  also  "  another  book,"  "  which  is  the  book  of  life."  The  books 
first  mentioned  doubtless  figuratively  represent  the  law  or  stand- 
ard according  to  which  each  one  was  to  be  judged,  and  the  facts 
in  his  case,  or  "  the  works  which  he  had  done."  The  "  book  of 
life"  (see  also  Phil,  iv.,  3  ;  Rev.  iii.,  5  ;  xiii.,  8  ;  xx.,  15)  is  the 
book  of  God's  eternal  electins;  love.  Those  whose  names  are 
found  written  in  the  "  book  of  life"  will  be  declared  righteous  on 
the  ground  of  their  participation  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 
Their  lioly  characters  and  good  deeds,  however,  will  bo  publicly 
declared  as  the  evidences  of  their  election,  of  their  relation  to 
Christ,  and  of  the  glorious  work  of  Christ  in  them.  Matt,  xiii., 
43 ;  XXV.,  34-40. 

Those  whose  names  are  not  found  written  in  "  the  book  of 
life"  will  be  condemned  oh  the  ground  of  the  evil  "  deeds  they 
have  done  in  the  body,"  tried  by  the  standard  of  God's  law,  not 
as  that  law  has  been  ignorautly  conceived  of  by  each,  but  as  it 
has  been  more  or  less  fully  and  clearly  revealed  by  the  Judge 
himself  to  each  severally.     The  heathen  who  has  sinned  without 


FINAL   CONFLAGRATION.  457 

the  written  law  "shall  be  judged  without  the  law,"  i.  e.,  by  the 
law  written  upon  his  heart,  which  made  him  a  law  unto  himself, 
Luke  xii.,  47,  48  ;  Rom.  ii.,  12-15.  The  Jew,  who  "  sinned  in 
the  law,  shall  be  judged  by  the  law,"  Rom.  ii,,  12.  Every  indi- 
vidual dwelling  under  the  light  of  the  Christian  revelation  shall 
be  judged  in  strict  accordance  with  the  whole  will  of  God  as  made 
known  to  him,  all  of  the  special  advantages  of  every  kind  enjoyed 
by  him  individually  modifying  the  proportion  of  his  responsibility, 
Matt,  xi.,  20-24  ;  John  iii.,  19. 

The  secrets  of  all  hearts,  the  inward  states  and  hidden  springs 
of  action  will  be  brought  in  as  the  subject  matter  of  judgment,  as 
weU  as  the  actions  themselves,  Eccle.  xii.,  14  ;  1  Cor.  iv,,  5  ;  and 
publicly  declared  to  vindicate  the  justice  of  the  Judge,  and  to 
make  manifest  the  shame  of  the  sinner,  Luke  viii.,  17  ;  xii.,  2,  3  ; 
Mark  iv.,  22.  Whether  the  sins  of  the  saints  will  be  brought  for- 
ward at  the  judgment  or  not  is  a  question  not  settled  by  the  Scrip- 
tures, though  debated  by  theologians.  If  they  should  be,  we  are 
sure  that  it  will  be  done  only  with  the  design  and  effect  of  en- 
hancing the  glory  of  the  Saviour  and  the  comfort  of  the  saved. 

17.  What  do  the  Scriptiires  reveal  concerning  the  future  con- 
flagration of  our  earth  ? 

The  principal  passages  bearing  upon  this  point  are  Ps.  cii.,  26, 
27  ;  Is.  Ii.,  6  ;  Rom.  viii.,  19-23  ;  Heb.  xii.,  26,  27  ;  2  Pet.  iii., 
10-13  ;  Rev.  xx.  and  xxi. 

Many  of  the  older  theologians  thought  that  these  passages 
indicated  that  the  whole  existing  physical  universe  was  to  be 
destroyed.  This  view  is  now  universally  discarded.  Some  held 
that  this  earth  is  to  be  annihilated. 

The  most  common  and  probable  opinion  is  that  at  "  the  resti- 
tution of  all  things,"  Acts,  iii.,  21,  this  earth,  with  its  atmosphere, 
is  to  be  subjected  to  intense  heat,  which  will  radically  change  its 
present  physical  condition,  introducing  in  the  place  of  the  present 
an  higher  order  of  things,  which  shall  appear  as  a  "  new  heavens  and 
a  new  earth,"  wherein  "  the  creature  itself,  also,  shall  be  delivered 
from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God,"  Rom.  viii.,  19-23,  and  wherein  the  constitution 
of  the  new  Avorld  will  be  adapted  to  the  "  spiritual"  or  resurrec- 
tion bodies  of  the  saints,  1  Cor.  xv.,  44,  to  be  the  scene  of  the 


458  SECOND    ADVENT. 

heavenly  society,  and,  ahove  all,  to  be  the  palace-temple  of  the 
God-man  for  ever,  Eph.  i.,  14  ;  Kev.  v.,  9,  10 ;  xxi.,  1-5.  See 
also  Fairbairn's  Typology,  Vol,  I.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  II.,  sec.  7. 

18.  What  should  be  the  moral  effect  of  the  Scripture  doctrine 
of  Christ's  second  advent  ? 

Christians  ought  thereby  to  be  comforted  when  in  sorrow,  and 
always  stimulated  to  duty,  Phil,  iii.,  20  ;  Col.  iii.,  4,  5  ;  James 
v.,  7  ;  1  John  iii.,  2,  3.  It  is  their  duty  also  to  love,  ivatch,  wait 
for,  and  hasten  unto  the  coming  of  their  Lord,  Luke  xii.,  35,  37  ; 

1  Cor.  i.,  7,  8  ;   Phil,  iii.,  20  ;   1  Thess.  i.,  9,  10  ;  2  Tim.  iv.,  8  ; 

2  Pet.  iii.,  12 ;  Kev.  xxii.,  20. 

Unbelievers  should  be  filled  with  fearful  apprehension,  and 
with  all  their  might  they  should  seek  place  for  immediate  re- 
pentance, Mark  xiii.,  35,  37 ;  2  Pet.  iii.,  9,  10  ;  Jude  14,  15.— 
Brown's  Second  Advent. 


CHAPTER     XXXVII. 

HEAVEN     AND      HELL. 

1.  What  is  the  Neiu  Testament  usage  as  to  the  terms  dvpavng, 
"  heaven,"  and  rd  inovpdvia,  "  heavenly  places  ?" 

'Ovpavog  is  used  chiefly  in  three  senses.  1st.  The  upper  air 
where  the  birds  fly,  Matt,  viii.,  20  ;  xxiv.,  30.  2d.  The  region 
in  which  the  stars  revolve,  Acts  vii.,  42  ;  Heb.  xi.,  12.  3d.  The 
abode  of  Christ's  human  nature,  the  scene  of  the  special  manifes- 
tation of  divine  glory,  and  of  the  eternal  blessedness  of  the  saints, 
Heb.  ix.,  24  ;  1  Pet.  iii.,  22.  This  is  sometimes  called  the 
"  third  heaven,"  2  Cor.  xii.,  2.  The  phrases  "  new  heaven,"  and 
"  new  earth,"  in  contrast  with  "  first  heavens"  and  "  first  earth," 

2  Pet.  iii.,  7,  13  ;  Rev.  xxi.,  1,  refer  to  some  unexplained  change 
which  will  take  place  in  the* final  catastrophe,  by  which  Cod  will 
revolutionize  our  portion  of  the  physical  universe,  cleansing  it 
from  the  stain  of  sin,  and  quahfying  it  to  be  the  abode  of  bless- 
edness. 

For  the  usage  with  regard  to  the  phrase  "  kingdom  of  heaven," 
see  above.  Chap.  XXIV.,  question  5. 

The  phrase  rd  Inovpdvia  is  translated  sometimes,  "  heavenly 
things,"  John  iii.,  12,  where  it  signifies  the  mysteries  of  the  un- 
seen spiritual  world  ;  and  sometimes  "heavenly  places,"  Eph.  i., 

3  ;  and  ii.,  6,  where  it  means  the  state  into  which  a  believer  is 
introduced  at  his  regeneration  ;  see  also  Eph.  i.,  20,  where  it 
means  the  "  third  heavens  ;"  and  Eph.  vi.,  12,  where  it  signifies 
indefinitely  the  supermundane  universe. 

2.  What  are  the  principle  terms,  both  literal  and  figurative, 
which  are  used  in  Scripture  to  designate  the  future,  blessedness 
of  the  saints  ? 

Literal  terms  : — "  life,  eternal  life,  and  life  everlasting,  Matt. 


460  HEAVEN. 

vii.,  14  ;  xix.,  16,  29  ;  xxv.,  46.  Glory,  the  glory  of  God,  an 
eternal  weight  of  glory,  Rom.  ii.,  7,  10  ;  v.,  2  ;  2  Cor.  iv.,  17. 
Peace,  Rom.  ii.,  10.  Salvation,  and  eternal  salvation,  Heb.  v.,  9." 
Figurative  terms  : — "  Paradise,  Luke  xxiii.,  43  ;  2  Cor.  xii., 
4  ;  Rev.  ii.,  7.  Heavenly  Jerusalem,  Gal.  iv.,  26  ;  Rev.  iii.,  12. 
Kingdom  of  heaven,  heavenly  kingdom,  eternal  kingdom,  king- 
dom prepared  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Matt,  xxv.,  34  ; 
2  Tim.  iv.,  18  ;  2  Pet.  i.,  11.  Eternal  inheritance,  1  Pet.  i.,  4 ; 
Heb.  ix.,  15,  The  blessed  are  said  to  sit  down  with  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  to  be  in  Abraham's  bosom,  Luke  xvi.,  22  ;  Matt, 
viii.,  11  ;  to  reign  with  Christ,  2  Tim.  ii.,  11,  12 ;  to  enjoy  a  Sab- 
bath or  rest,  Heb.  iv.,  10,  11."— Kitto's  Bib.  Eucy. 

3.  What  is  revealed  with  respect  to  heaven  as  a  place  ? 

All  the  Scripture  representations  of  heaven  involve  the  idea 
of  a  definite  place,  as  well  as  of  a  state  of  blessedness.  Of  that 
place,  however,  nothing  more  is  revealed  than  that  it  is  defined 
by  the  local  presence  of  Christ's  finite  soul  and  body,  and  that  it 
is  the  scene  of  the  preeminent  manifestation  of  God's  glory,  John 
xvii.,  24  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  9  ;  Rev.  v.,  6. 

From  such  passages  as  Rom.  viii.,  19-23  ;  2  Pet.  iii.,  5-13  ; 
Rev.  xxi.,  1,  it  appears  not  improbable  that  after  the  general  des- 
truction of  the  present  form  of  the  world  by  fire,  which  shall  ac- 
company the  judgment,  this  world  will  be  reconstituted,  and  glo- 
riously adapted  to  be  the  permanent  residence  of  Christ  and  his 
church.  As  there  is  to  be  a  "  spiritual  body,"  there  may  be  in 
the  same  sense  a  spiritual  world,  that  is,  a  world  adapted  to  be 
the  theater  of  the  glorified  spirits  of  the  saints  made  perfect.  As 
nature  was  cursed  for  man's  sake,  and  the  creature,  through  him, 
made  subject  to  vanity,  it  may  be  that  they  shall  share  in  his 
redemption  and  exaltation.  See  Fairbairn's  Typology,  Part  II., 
Chap.  II.,  sec.  7. 

4.  Wherein  does  the  blessedness  of  heaven  consist  as  far  as 
revealed  f 

1st.  Negatively,  in  perfect  deliverance  from  sin,  and  from  aU 
its  evil  consequences,  physical,  moral,  and  social.  Rev.  vii.,  16, 
17  ;  xxi.,  4,  27. 

2d.  Positively.    (1.)  In  the  perfection  of  our  nature,  both  ma- 


ITS  BLESSEDNESS.  461 

terial  and  spiritual ;  the  full  development  and  hannonious  exer- 
cise of  all  our  faculties,  intellectual  and  moral,  and  in  the  unre- 
strained progress  thereof  to  eternity,  1  Cor.  xiii.,  9-12  ;  xv., 
45-49  ;  1  John  iii.,  2.  (2.)  In  the  sight  of  our  blessed  Redeemer, 
communion  with  his  person,  and  fellowship  in  all  his  glory  and 
blessedness,  and  through  him  with  saints  and  angels,  John  xvii., 
24  ;  1  John  i.,  3  ;  Rev.  iii.,  21  ;  xxi.,  3,  4,  5.  (3.)  In  that 
"  beatific  vision  of  God,"  which,  consisting  in  the  ever  increasingly 
clear  discovery  of  the  divine  excellence  lovingly  apprehended, 
transforms  the  soul  into  the  same  image,  from  glory  unto  glory. 
Matt,  v.,  8  ;  2  Cor.  iii.,  18. 

In  meditating  upon  what  is  revealed  of  the  conditions  of 
heavenly  existence  two  en'ors  are  to  be  avoided  :  1st,  the  ex- 
treme of  regarding  the  mode  of  existence  experienced  by  the 
saints  in  heaven  as  too  nearly  analogous  to  that  of  our  earthly 
life  ;  2d,  the  opposite  extreme  of  regarding  the  conditions  of  the 
heavenly  life  as  too  widely  distinguished  from  that  of  our  present 
experience.  The  evil  effect  of  the  first  extreme  will,  of  course, 
be  to  degrade  by  unworthy  associations  our  conceptions  of  heaven; 
while  the  evil  effect  of  the  opposite  extreme  will  be  in  great 
measure  to  destroy  the  moral  power  which  a  hope  of  heaven 
should  naturally  exert  over  our  hearts  and  lives,  by  rendering  our 
conceptions  of  it  vague,  and  our  sympathy  with  its  characteristics 
consequently  distant  and  feeble.  To  avoid  both  of  these  ex- 
tremes, we  should  fix  the  limits  within  which  our  conceptions  of 
the  future  existence  of  the  saints  must  range,  by  distinguishing 
between  those  elements  of  man's  nature,  and  of  his  relations  to 
God  and  other  men,  which  are  essential  and  unchangeable,  and 
those  elements  which  must  be  changed  in  order  to  render  his 
nature  in  his  relations  perfect.  1st.  The  following  must  be 
changed  :  (1.)  all  sin  and  its  consequences  must  be  removed  ; 
(2.)  "  spiritual  bodies"  must  take  the  place  of  our  present  flesh 
and  blood  ;  (3.)  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  must  take 
the  place  of  the  present  heavens  and  earth,  as  the  scene  of  man's 
life  ;  (4.)  the  laws  of  social  organization  must  be  radically 
changed,  since  in  heaven  there  will  be  no  marriage,  but  a  social 
order  analogous  to  that  of  the  "  angels  of  God"  introduced. 

2d.  The  following  elements  are  essential,  and  therefore  un- 
changeable.   (1.)  Man  will  continue  ever  to  exist,  as  compounded 


462  HEAVEN, 

of  two  natures,  spiritual  and  material.  (2.)  He  is  essentially  in- 
tellectual, and  must  live  by  knowledge.  (3.)  He  is  essentially 
active,  and  must  have  work  to  do.  (4.)  Man  can,  as  a  finite 
creature,  knoAv  God  only  mediately,  i.  e.,  through  his  works  of 
creation  and  providence,  the  experience  of  his  gracious  work  upon 
our  hearts,  and  through  his  incarnate  Son,  who  is  the  image  of 
his  person,  and  the  fullness  of  the  Grodhcad  bodily.  God  will 
therefore  in  heaven  continue  to  teach  man  through  his  works, 
and  to  act  upon  him  by  means  of  motives  addressed  to  his  will 
through  his  understanding,  (5.)  The  memory  of  man  never 
finally  loses  the  slightest  impression,  and  it  will  belong  to  the 
perfection  of  the  heavenly  state  that  every  experience  acquired 
in  the  past  will  always  be  within  the  perfect  control  of  the  will. 
(6,)  Man  is  essentially  a  social  being.  This,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  preceding  point,  indicates  the  conclusion  that  the  asso- 
ciations, as  well  as  the .  exjDerience  of  our  earthly  life,  will  carry 
all  of  their  natural  consequences  with  them  into  the  new  mode 
of  existence,  except  as  far  as  they  are  necessarily  modified  (not 
lost)  by  the  change.  (7.)  Man's  life  is  essentially  an  eternal  pro- 
gress toward  infinite  perfection.  (8.)  All  the  known  analogies 
of  God's  works  in  creation,  in  his  providence  in  the  material  and 
moral  world,  and  in  his  dispensation  of  grace,  (1  Cor.  xii.,  5-28,) 
indicate  that  in  heaven  saints  will  difier  among  themselves  both 
as  to  inherent  capacities  and  qualities,  and  as  to  relative  rank  and 
office.  These  differences  will  doubtless  be  determined  a  by  con- 
stitutional differences  of  natural  capacity,  b  by  gracious  rewards 
in  heaven  corresponding  in  kind  and  degree  to  the  gracious  fruit- 
fulness  of  the  individual  on  earth,  c  by  the  absolute  sovereignty 
of  the  Creator,  Matt,  xvi.,  27  ;  Kom.  ii.,  6  ;  1  Cor.  xii.,  4-28. 

5.  What  are  the  principal  terms,  literal  and  figurative,  zohich 
are  applied  in  Scripture  to  the  future  condition  of  the  reprobate? 

As  a  place,  it  is  sometimes  literally  designated  by  aLdrjc^  JIadcs, 
and  sometimes  by  yetwa,  both  translated  hell,  Matt,  v,,  22,  29, 
30  ;  Luke  xvi,,  23.  Also  by  the  phrase,  "  j^lace  of  torment," 
Luke  xvi.,  28.  As  a  condition  of  suffering,  it  is  literally  desig- 
nated by  the  phrases,  "  wrath  of  God,"  Rom.  ii.,  5,  and  "  second 
death,"  Rev.  xxi,,  8. 


SCRIPTUKAL    DESIGNATIONS.  463 

Figurative  terras. — Everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil 
and  his  angels,  Matt,  xxv.,  41.  The  hell  of  fire,  where  the  worm 
dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched,  Mark  ix.,  44.  The  lake 
which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone,  Eev.  xxi.,  8.  Bottomless 
pit,  Rev.  ix.,  2.  The  dreadful  nature  of  this  abode  of  the  wicked 
is  implied  in  such  expressions  as  "outer  darkness,"  the  place 
"  where  there  is  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,"  Matt,  viii.,  12  ; 
'■'I  am  tormented  in  this  flame,"  Luke  xvi.,  24;  "unquenchable 
fire,"  Luke  iii.,  17  ;  "furnace  of  fire,"  Matt,  xiii.,  42  ;  "black- 
ness of  darkness,"  Jude  13  ;  "  torment  in  fire  and  brimstone," 
Eev.  xiv.,  10  ;  "  the  smoke  of  their  torment  ascendeth  for  ever 
and  ever,  and  they  have  no  rest  day  nor  night,"  Rev.  xiv.,  11. — 
Kitto's  Bib.  Ency. 

6.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  nature  of  future 
punishments  ? 

The  terms  used  in  Scripture  to  describe  these  sufierings  are 
evidently  figurative,  yet  they  certainly  establish  the  following 
points.  These  sufierings  will  consist,  1st,  in  the  loss  of  all  good, 
whether  natural,  as  granted  through  Adam,  or  gracious,  as  offered 
through  Christ.  2d.  In  all  tlie  natural  consequences  of  unre- 
strained sin,  judicial  abandonment,  utter  alienation  from  God, 
and  the  awful  society  of  lost  men  and  devils,  2  Thess.  i.,  9.  3d. 
In  the  positive  infliction  of  torment,  Grod's  wrath  and  curse  de- 
scending upon  both  the  moral  and  physical  nature  of  its  objects. 
The  Scriptures  also  establish  the  fact  that  these  sufierings  must 
be,  1st,  inconceivably  dreadful  in  degree.  2d.  Endless  in  dura- 
tion. 3d.  Various  in  degree,  proportionately  to  the  deserts  of 
the  subject.  Matt,  x.,  15  ;  Luke  xii.,  48. 

7.  What  is  the  usage  of  the  ivords,  diajv,  eternity ,  and  dicoviog, 
eternal,  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  argument  thence  derived 
establishing  the  endless  duration  of  future  punishment  ? 

1st.  The  Greek  language  possesses  no  more  emphatic  terms 
with  which  to  express  the  idea  of  endless  duration  than  these. 
2d.  Although  they  arc  sometimes  employed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  designate  limited  duration,  yet,  in  the  vast  majority  of 
instances,  they  evidently  designate  unlimited  dm-ation.     3d.  They 


464  HELL. 

are  used  to  express  the  endless  duration  of  God.  (1.)  di(bv  is 
thus  used,  1  Tim.  i.,  17,  and  as  applied  to  Christ,  Eev.  i.,  18. 
(2.)  dtdjviog  is  thus  used,  Rom.  xvi.,  26,  and  as  applied  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  Heb.  ix.,  14.  4th.  They  are  used  to  express  the 
endless  duration  of  the  future  happiness  of  the  saints.  (1.)  dtu)v 
is  thus  used,  John  vi.,  57,  58  ;  2  Cor.  ix.,  9.  (2.)  dicoviog  is  thus 
used,  Matt,  xix.,  29  ;  Mark  x.,  30;  John  iii.,  15;  Rom.  ii.,  7. 
5th.  In  Matt,  xxv.,  46,  the  very  same  word  is  used  in  a  single 
clause  to  define  at  once  the  duration  of  the  future  happiness  of 
the  saints,  and  the  misery  of  the  lost.  Thus  the  Scriptures  do 
expressly  declare  that  the  duration  of  the  future  misery  of  the 
lost  is  to  be  in  precisely  the  same  sense  unending,  as  is  either  the 
life  of  God,  or  the  blessedness  of  the  saints. 

8.  What  evidence  f 07^  the  truth  on  this  subject  is  furnished  by 
the  New  Testament  usage  of  the  word  dtdiog  ? 

This  word,  formed  from  dd,  always,  for  ever,  signifies,  in  clas- 
sical Greek,  eternal.  It  occurs  only  twice  in  the  New  Testament, 
Rom.  i.,  20,  "  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead,"  and  Jude  6, 
"  Angels  reserved  in  everlasting  chains."  But  lost  men  share  the 
fate  of  lost  angels.  Matt,  xxv.,  41 ;  Rev.  xx.,  10.  Thus  the  same 
word  expresses  the  duration  of  the  Godhead  and  of  the  sufferings 
of  the  lost. 

9.  What  other  evidence  do  the  Scriptures  furnish  on  this  sub- 
ject ? 

1st.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  which,  even  by  the 
most  remote  implication,  suggests  that  the  sufferings  of  the  lost 
shall  ever  end. 

2d.  The  constant  application  to  the  subject  of  such  figurative 
language  as,  "  fire  that  shall  not  be  quenched,"  "  fire  unquench- 
able," "  the  worm  that  never  dies,"  "  bottomless  pit,"  the  neces- 
sity of  paying  the  "  uttermost  farthing,"  "  the  smoke  of  their  tor- 
ment arising  for  ever  and  ever,"  Luke  iii.,  17  ;  Mark  ix.,  45,  46  ; 
Rev.  xiv.,  10,  11,  is  consistent  only  with  the  conviction  that  God 
wills  us  to  believe  on  his  authority  that  future  punishments  are 
literally  endless.  It  is  said  of  those  who  commit  the  unpardon- 
able sin  that  they  shall  never  be  forgiven,  "  either  in  this  world 
nor  in  that  which  is  to  come,"  Matt,  xii.,  32. 


ETERl^ITY    OF    SUFFERING,  465 

10.  What  are  two  vieios  on  this  suhjcct,  ivhich  have  been  held 
by  different  2^arties  in  opposition  to  the  faith  of  the  lohoJc  Chris- 
tian church,  and  the  clear  teaching  of  God's  ivord  ? 

The  ouly  two  classes  of  tlieories  possible  as  alternatives  to  the 
orthodox  doctrine  on  this  subject,  are  those,  1st,  wliich  involve 
the  idea  of  the  total  destruction  of  being  (annihilation)  as  an  ele- 
ment of  the  "second  death."  2d.  Those  which  maintain  the 
future  restoration  of  the  sinner  after  an  indefinite  period  of  aton- 
ing and  purifying  suffering  in  proportion  to  his  guilt. 

In  refutation  of  the /or  »ier  of  these  theories,  wliich  has  been 
rendered  respectable  chiefly  by  the  adventitious  circumstance  that 
it  is  countenanced  by  Archbishop  Whately,  "  View  of  Sc.  Rev. 
Concerning  a  Future  State,"  we  argue,  1st,  the  Scriptures  never 
express  the  idea  contended  for,  but  consistently  use  language 
which  has  naturally  and  almost  universally  conveyed  an  opposite 
idea.  2d.  The  Scriptures  plainly  assert  (1.)  that  the  future  state 
is  one  of  conscious  suffering,  (2.)  that  this  conscious  suffering  is 
to  continue  forever — "  worm  dieth  not,"  "  everlasting  fire,"  "  un- 
quenchable fire,"  "  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,"  "  the  smoke 
of  their  torment  ascendeth  up  for  ever  and  ever,  and  they  have 
no  rest  day  nor  night."     See  above,  question  9. 

In  refutation  of  the  latter  opinion,  that  the  lost  will  be  re- 
stored after  an  indefinite  period  of  suffering,  we  argue,  1st,  it  has 
no  foundation  in  Scripture.  2d.  It  is  directly  refuted  by  all 
the  jjositive  evidence  we  have  above  presented  in  establishing  the 
orthodox  doctrine.  3d.  The  atonement  of  Christ  and  the  sancti- 
fying work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  the  exclusive  means  of  salva- 
tion. (1.)  These  have  been  finally  rejected  by  the  lost.  (2.) 
They  are  never  applied  in  hell.  4th.  The  essential  nature  of  sin 
determines  it  when  left  to  itself  to  multiply  itself  and  its  conse- 
quent miseries  at  a  fearful  ratio.  5th.  Suffering  per  se  has  no 
cleansing  power  ;  penal  evils,  when  sufficient,  may  satisfy  justice 
for  past  sin,  but  they  can  not  cleanse  the  heart,  nor  prevent  re- 
newed transgressions.  6th.  This  essential  insalvabilify  of  the  lost 
sinnei*  will  be  in  the  highest  degree  aggravated  by  his  circum- 
stances ;  banished  from  God,  subject  to  his  cm-se,  in  unutterable 
torments,  without  grace  and  without  hope,  and  surrounded  with 
the  society  of  all  the  workers  of  abomination  gathered  from  the 
whole  universe. 


466  HELL. 

11.  What  objection  is  urged  against  this  doctrine  derived 
from  the  justice  of  God  ? 

The  justice  of  God  demands  that  the  punishment  should  be 
exactly  proportioned  to  the  guilt  of  the  subject.  But  it  is  ob- 
jected, 1st.  No  sin  of  any  finite  creature  can  deserve  an  infinite 
punishment.  2d.  All  everlasting  punishment  is  infinite,  but  the 
infinite  does  not  admit  of  degrees,  yet  the  guilt  of  difierent  sin- 
ners is  various.  3d.  The  moral  difference  between  the  lowest 
saint  saved,  and  the  most  amiable  sinner  lost,  is  imperceptible, 
yet  their  fate  differs  infinitely. 

To  the  frst  objection  we  answer.  The  human  mind  not  being 
able  to  conceive  of  the  infinite,  only  confuses  itself  when  it  at- 
tempts to  deal  with  its  negative  conception  of  the  indefinite  as  a 
reality.  Every  sin  of  man  against  the  infinite  God  is  declared 
by  Scripture,  and  is  felt  by  every  enlightened  conscience  to  be, 
worthy  of  instant  and  final  expulsion  from  the  divine  presence, 
which  necessarily  leads  to  an  absolutely  endless  increase  botli  of 
sin  and  misery.  Gal.  iii.,  10  ;  James  ii.,  10.  The  same  is  jjroved 
by  the  infinite  sacrifice  justice  demanded  for  the  propitiation  of 
sin.  "  If  they  do  these  things  in  a  green  tree,  what  shall  be  done 
in  the  dry  ?"  Luke  xxiii.,  31. 

The  second  objection  is  a  dishonest  cavil.  It  is  very  plain 
that  sufferings  may  be  at  once  infinite  in  duration,  and  various 
as  to  degree. 

To  the  third  objection  we  answer.  That  although  there  may 
be  little  difference  as  to  their  respective  personal  demerits  between 
the  feeblest  saint  and  the  most  moral  reprobate,  yet  there  is 
rightly  made  an  infinite  difference  in  their  treatment,  because  of 
their  essentially  different  relations  to  Christ.  The  feeblest  and 
the  loftiest  saint  are  alike  justified  upon  an  equal  foundation ; 
each  has  the  whole  of  Christ,  and  nothing  more. 

12.  What  objection  drawn  from  the  benevolence  of  God  has 
been  urged  against  this  doctrine  ? 

It  has  been  objected  that  Gml  is  essentially  benevolent,  and 
that  it  is  inconsistent  with  his  nature  to  inflict  any  suffering  upon 
his  creatures  which  is  not  necessary  as  a  means  to  the  end  of  their 
attaining  some  higher  good.     We  answer :   1st,  God  is  just  as 


ETERNITY  OF  SUFFERING.  467 

well  as  benevolent,  and  one  of  the  elements  of  liis  infinite  perfec- 
tion can  not  be  inconsistent  with  another,  2d.  We  have  con- 
stant experience  that  God  does  in  principle  involve  his  creatures 
in  sufferings  which  are  not  to  the  individual  subjects  thereof  the 
means  of  any  conceivable  advantage.  3d.  It  would  follow  that 
Christ  was  sacrificed  in  vain  if  those  who  reject  him,  and  who 
fail  of  all  share  in  his  grace,  are  not  eternally  punished.  4th. 
The  very  benevolence  of  God,  as  concerned  for  the  general  good 
of  the  universe,  concurs  with  his  justice  in  demanding  the  execu- 
tion of  the  full  penalty  of  the  law  upon  all  unbelievers. 

13.  What  argument  for  the  future  restoration  of  all  rational 
creatures  to  holiness  and  happiness  is  founded  upon  Rom.  v.,  18, 
19  ;  1  Cor.  xv.,  22-28  ;  Eph.  i.,  10  ;  Col.  i.,  19,  20  ? 

In  regard  to  Rom.  v.,  18,  it  is  argued  that  the  phrase  "  all 
men"  must  have  precisely  the  same  extent  of  application  in  the 
one  clause  as  in  the  other.  We  answer,  1st,  the  phrase  "  all 
men"  is  often  used  in  Scripture  in  connections  which  necessarily 
restrict  the  sense,  John  iii.,26;  xii.,  32.  2d.  In  this  case  the  phrase 
"  all  men"  is  evidently  defined  by  the  qualifying  phrase,  ver.  17, 
"who  have  received  abundance  of  grace  and  the  gift  of  righteous- 
ness." 3d.  This  contrast  between  the  "  all  men"  in  Adam  and 
the  "  all  men"  in  Christ  is  consistent  with  the  analogy  of  the 
whole  gospel. 

In  regard  to  1  Cor.  xv.,  22,  the  argument  is  the  same  as 
that  drawn  from  Rom.  v.,  18.  From  verses  25-28  it  is  argued 
that  the  great  end  of  Christ's  mediatorial  reign  must  be  the  resto- 
ration of  every  creature  to  holiness  and  blessedness.  To  this  we 
answer,  1st,  this  is  a  strained  interpretation  put  upon  these  words, 
which  they  do  not  necessarily  bear,  and  which  is  clearly  refuted 
by  the  many  direct  testimonies  we  have  cited  from  Scripture 
above.  2d.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  scope  of  Paul's  subject  in 
this  passage.  He  says  that  from  eternity  to  the  ascension  God 
reigned  absolutely.  From  the  ascension  to  the  restitution  of  all 
things  God  reigns  in  the  person  of  the  God-man  as  Mediator. 
From  the  restitution  to  eternity  God  will  again  reign  directly 
as  absolute  God. 

The  ultimate  salvation  of  aU  creatures  is  argued  also  from 


468  HELL. 

Eph.  i.,  10  ;  Col.  i.,  19,  20.  In  both  passages,  however,  the  "all 
things"  signify  the  whole  company  of  angels  and  redeemed  men, 
who  are  gathered  under  the  dominion  of  Christ.  Because,  1st, 
in  both  passages  the  subject  of  discourse  is  the  church,  not  the 
universe  ;  2d,  in  both  passages  the  "  all  things"  is  limited  by  the 
qualifying  phrases,  "  the  predestinated,"  "  we  who  first  trusted 
in  Christ,"  "  the  accepted  in  the  beloved,"  "  if  ye  continue  in  the 
faith,"  etc.,  etc.  See  Hodge's  Commentaries  on  Komans,  1st 
Corinthians  and  Ephesians. 


CHAPTER     XXXVIII. 

SACRAMENTS, 

1.  W7iat  is  etymology,  and  ivliat  the  classical  and  patristic 
usage  of  the  word  "  sacramentum  f" 

1st.  It  is  derived  from  sacro,  are,  to  make  sacred,  dedicate  to 
gods  or  sacred  uses. 

2d.  In  its  classical  usage  it  signified  (1.)  that  by  which  a  per- 
son binds  himself  to  another  to  perform  any  thing.  (2.)  Thence  a 
sum  deposited  with  the  court  as  pledge,  and  which,  if  forfeited, 
was  devoted  to  sacred  uses.  (3.)  Also  an  oath,  especially  a  sol- 
dier's oath  of  faithful  consecration  to  his  country's  semce. — Ains- 
worth's  Die. 

3d.  The  fathers  used  this  word  in  a  conventional  sense  as 
equivalent  to  the  Greek  iivari]Qiov,  a  mystery,  i.  e.,  something  un- 
known until  revealed,  and  hence  an  emblem,  a  type,  a  rite  hav- 
ing some  latent  spiritual  meaning  known  only  to  the  initiated, 
or  instructed. 

The  Greek  fathers  applied  the  term  fivav'^piov  to  the  Christian 
ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  inasmuch  as  these 
rites  had  a  spiritual  significance,  and  were  thus  a  form  of  revela- 
tion of  divine  truth. 

The  Latin  fathers  used  the  word  "sacramentum"  as  a  Latin 
word,  in  its  own  proper  sense,  for  any  thing  sacred  in  itself,  or 
having  the  power  of  binding,  or  consecrating  men,  and  in  addition 
they  used  it  as  the  equivalent  of  the  Greek  word  hvot/jqiov^  i.  e., 
in  the  entirely  diiferent  sense  of  a  revealed  truth,  or  a  sign  or 
symbol  revealing  a  truth  otherwise  liidden.  This  fact  has  given 
to  the  usage  of  this  word  "  sacramentum,"  in  the  scholastic  the- 
ology, an  injurious  latitude  and  indefiuiteness  of  meaning.     Thus 


470  SACKAMENTS. 

in  Eph.  iii.,  3,  4,  9  ;  v.,  32  ;  1  Tim.  iii.,  16  ;  Ecv.  i.,  20,  the 
word  juvcTTz/ptov  truly  bears  the  sense  of  "  the  revelation  of  a  truth 
undiscoverahle  by  reason,"  and  it  is  translated  in  such  passages 
in  the  English  version,  mystery,  and  in  the  Latin  vulgate,  "  sac- 
ramentinn."  Thus  the  Romish  church  uses  the  same  word  in  two 
entirely  different  senses,  applying  it  indifferently  to  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper  "  as  binding  ordinances,"  and  to  the  union  of 
believers  with  Christ  as  a  revealed  truth,  Eph.  v.,  32.  And  hence 
they  absurdly  infer  that  matrimony  is  a  sacrament. 

2.  What  is  the  definition  of  a  sacrament,  as  given  by  the  Fa- 
thers, the  Schoolmen,  the  Romish  Church,  the  Church  of  England, 
and  in  our  oion  Standards  ? 

Ist.  Augustin's  definition  is  "  Signuin  rei  sacras,"  or  "  Sacra- 
mentum  est  invisibilis  gratise  visibile  sis^num,  ad  nostram  justifi- 
cationem  institutum." 

2d.  The  schoolmen  defined,  "  Sacramentum  invisibilis  gratife 
visibilem  formam. 

3d.  The  Council  of  Trent  defines  them,  "  A  sacrament  is 
something  presented  to  the  senses,  which  has  the  power,  by  divine 
institution,  not  only  of  signifying,  but  also  of  efficiently  convey- 
ing grace  " — Cat.  Rom.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  I.,  Q.  6. 

4th.  Church  of  England,  in  the  25th  article  of  religion,  affirms 
that  "  Sacraments  instituted  by  Christ  are  not  only  the  badges 
and  tokens  of  the  profession  of  Christian  men,  but  rather  they  be 
certain  sure  witnesses  and  efiectual  signs  of  grace,  and  of  God's 
good  will  towards  us,  by  the  which  he  doth  work  inwardly  in  us, 
and  doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm  our 
faith  in  him." 

5tli,  The  Wesminster  Assembly's  Larger  Cat.,  Q.  162  and 
163,  affirms  that  a  "  Sacrament  is  a  holy  ordinance  instituted  by 
Chiist  in  his  church,  to  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit  to  those  who  are 
within  the  covenant  of  grace  the  benefits  of  his  mediation,  to  in- 
crease their  fiiith  and  all  other  graces,  to  oblige  them  to  obedi- 
ence, to  testify  and  cherish  their  love  and  communion  with  one 
another,  and  to  distinguish  them  from  those  that  are  without." 
"  The  parts  of  a  sacrament  are  two,  the  one  an  outward  and 
sensible  sign  used  according  to  Christ's  own  appointment ;  the 
other  an  inward  spiritual  gi-ace  thereby  signified." 


THEIR    NUMBER.  471 

3.  On  tohat  principles  is  such  a  definition  to  he  constructed  ? 

1st.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  term  '^  sacrament"  does 
not  occur  in  the  Bible. 

2d.  From  the  extreme  latitude  with  which  this  term  has  been 
used,  both  in  the  sense  proper  to  it  as  a  Latin  word,  and  in  that 
attributed  to  it  as  the  conventional  equivalent  of  the  Greek  word 
fivar/jpioVj  it  is  evident  that  no  definition  of  a  gospel  ordinance 
can  be  arrived  at  by  a  mere  reference  either  to  the  etymology  or 
ecclesiastical  usage  of  the  word  "  sacramentum." 

3d.  The  definition  of  a  class  of  gospel  ordinances  can  be  prop- 
erly formed  only  by  a  comparison  of  all  the  Scriptures  teach 
concerning  the  origin,  nature,  and  design  of  those  ordinances 
universally  recognized  as  belonging  to  that  class,  and  thus  by 
determining  those  essential  elements  which  are  common  to  each 
member  of  the  class,  and  which  distinguish  them  as  a  class  from 
all  other  divine  ordinances. 

4th.  Those  ordinances  which  are  "  universally  recognized"  as 
sacraments  are  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper. 

4.  Hoiv  many  sacraments  do  Romanists  make,  and  how  may 
the  controversy  hetiveen  them  and  the  Protestants  he  decided  'i 

The  Roman  church  teaches  that  there  are  seven  sacraments, 
viz.,  baptism,  confirmation,  the  Lord's  supper,  jienance,  extreme 
unction,  ordei'S,  marriage. 

We  maintain,  however,  that  only  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  can  be  properly  embraced  under  either  the  Protestant  or 
the  Catholic  definitions  of  a  sacrament,  as  given  above,  ques- 
tion 2. 

1st.  Confirmation,  penance,  and  extreme  unction  are  not  di- 
vine institutions,  having  no  warrant  whatever  in  Scripture. 

2.  That  marriage  instituted  by  God  in  Paradise,  and  ordination 
to  the  gospel  ministry  instituted  by  Christ,  although  both  divine 
institutions,  are  evidently  not  ordinances  of  the  same  kind  with 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  and  do  not  meet  the  conditions 
of  either  definitions  of  a  sacrament,  since  they  neither  signify  nor 
convey  any  inward  grace. 

5.  What  two  things  are  included  in  every  sacrament  ? 

1st.  "  An  outward  visible  sign  used  according  to  Christ's  o\\n 


472  SACKAMENTS. 

appointment ;  2d,  an  inward  spiritual  grace  thereby  signified. — 
L.  Cat.,  Q.  163. 

The  Komanists,  in  the  language  of  the  schoolmen,  distinguish 
between  the  matter  and  the  form  of  a  sacrament.  The  matter  is 
that  part  of  the  sacrament  subjected  to  the  senses,  and  significant 
of  grace,  e.  g.,  the  water,  and  the  act  of  applying  the  water  in 
baptism,  and  the  bread  and  wine,  and  the  acts  of  breaking  the 
bread,  and  pouring  out  the  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper.  The  form 
is  the  divine  word  used  by  the  minister  in  administering  the  ele- 
ments, devoting  them  thus  to  the  office  of  signifying  grace, 

6.  What,  according  to  the  Romanists,  is  the  relation  between 
the  sign  and  the  grace  signified  ? 

They  hold  that  in  consequence  of  the  divine  institution,  and 
in  virtue  of  the  "  power  of  the  Omnipotent  which  exists  in  them," 
the  grace  signified  is  contained  in  the  very  nature  of  the  sacra- 
ments themselves,  so  that  it  is  always  conferred,  ex  opere  operato, 
upon  every  receiver  of  them  who  does  not  oppose  a  positive  obstacle 
thereto.  Thus  they  understand  the  "  sacramental  union,"  or  re- 
lation between  the  sign  and  the  grace  signified  to  be  physical,  or 
that  which  subsists  between  a  substance  and  its  properties,  i.  e., 
the  virtue  of  conferring  grace  is,  in  the  sacraments,  as  the  virtue 
of  burning  is  in  fire. — Council  of  Trent,  Scss.  7,  Cans.  6  and  8. 
Cat.  Rom.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  I.,  Q.  18.     Bellarmine  de  Sacram.  2, 1. 

7.  What  is  the  Zuinglian  doctrine  on  this  subject  '^ 
Zuingle,  the  reformer  of  Switzerland,  held  a  position  at  the 

opposite  extreme  to  that  of  the  Eomish  church,  viz.,  that  the 
sign  simply  represents  by  appropriate  symbols,  and  symbolical 
actions,  the  grace  to  which  it  is  related.  Thus  the  sacraments 
are  only  effective  means  of  the  objective  presentation  of  the  truth 
symbolized. 

8.  In  what  sense  is  the  ivord  "  exhibit"  tised  in  our  standards 
in  reference  to  this  subject  ? 

Compare  Con.  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXVII.,  Sec.  3,  and  Chap. 
XXVIII.,  Sec.  6,  and  L.  Cat.  Q.  1G2. 

This  word  is  derived  from  the  Latin  word  "  cxhibeo,"  which 
bore  the  twofold  sense  of  conveying  and  of  disclosing.    It  is  evi- 


I 


THEIR   DESIGN.  473 

dent  that  the  term  "  exhibit"  has  retained  in  our  standards  the 
former  sense  of  conveyin-g,  conferring.  As  in  medical  languao-e 
"  to  exhibit  a  remedy"  is  to  administer  it. 

9.  What  is  the  common  doctrine  of  the  reformed  churches 
as  to  the  relation  of  the  sign  to  the  grace  signified  ? 

The  reformed  confessions  agree  in  teaching  that  this  relation 
is,  1st,  simply  moral,  i.  e.,  it  is  established  only  by  the  institution 
and  promise  of  Christ,  and  it  depends  upon  the  right  administra- 
tion of  the  ordinance,  and  upon  the  faith  and  knowledge  of  the 
recipient.  And,  2d,  that  it  is  real,  that  is,  when  rightly  adminis- 
tered, and  when  received  by  the  recipient  with  knowledge  and 
faith  they  do  really,  because  of  the  i)romise  of  Christ,  seal  the 
grace  signified,  and  convey  it  to  the  recipient,  i.  e.,  the  recipient 
does  receive  the  grace  with  the  sign. 

This  doctrine,  therefore,  includes,  1st,  the  Zuinglian  view, 
that  the  outward  visible  sign  truly  signifies  the  grace.  And,  2d, 
that  they  are,  as  ordinances  of  God's  appointment,  seals  attached 
to  the  promise  to  authenticate  it,  as  the  natural  phenomenon  of 
the  rainbow  was  made  a  seal  of  God's  promise  to  Noah  in  virtue 
of  the  divine  appointment.  3d.  That  as  seals  thus  accompanying 
a  divine  promise  by  divine  authority,  they  do  actually  convey  the 
grace  they  signify  to  those  for  whom  that  grace  is  intended,  and 
who  are  in  a  proper  spiritual  state  to  receive  it,  "  as  a  key  con- 
veys admission,  a  deed,  an  estate,  the  ceremony  of  marriage  the 
rights  of  marriage."  See  Turrettin,  L.  XIX.,  question  4  ;  Conf 
Faith,  Chap.  XXVII. ;  L.  Cat.,  questions  162,  163 ;  Cat.  Gene., 
sec.  5th,  de  Sacramentis  ;  Conf  Faith  of  the  French  Church,  arti- 
cle 34  ;  Old  Scotch  Conf,  section  21. 

10.  What  is  the  design  of  the  sacraments  ? 

1st.  That  they  should  signify,  seal  and  exliibit  to  those  within 
the  covenant  of  grace  the  benefits  of  Christ's  redem])tion,  and 
thus  as  a  princii)le  means  of  grace  edify  the  church.  Matt,  iii.,  11  ; 
Gen.  xvii.,  11,  13  ;  1  Cor.  x.,  2-21  ;  xi.,  23-26  ;  xii.,  13  ;  Rom. 
ii.,  28,  29  ;  iv.,  11  ;  vi.,  3,  4  ;  Gal.  iii.,  27  ;  1  Pet.  iii.,  21. 

2d.  That  they  should  be  visible  badges  of  membership  in  the 
chiu'ch,  to  put  a  visible  difference  between  the  professed  followers 


474  SACRAMENTS. 

of  Christ  and  the  world,  Gen.  xxxiv.,  14  ;  Ex.  xii.,  48  ;  Eph.  ii., 
19  ;  Conf.  Faith,  Chap.  XXVII.,  section  1. 

11.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sac- 
raments ?  » 

In  consistency  with  their  view  of  the  relation  of  the  grace  sig- 
nified to  the  sign,  (see  above,  question  6,)  they  hold  that  the  sac- 
raments, in  every  case  of  their  legitimate  administration,  convey 
the  grace  they  signify  to  every  recipient  not  opposing  a  positive 
resistance,  not  depending  upon  tlie  faith  of  the  receiver,  but  ex 
ojpere  operato,  by  the  inherent  grace-conferring  virtue  of  the  sac- 
rament itself.  The  external  action  of  the  sacrament  they  hold  to 
be  the  sole  active  and  proximate  instrumental  cause  in  conferring 
the  gi-ace  of  justification. 

"  By  the  sacraments  all  true  righteousness  is  commenced,  or 
having  been  commenced,  is  increased,  or  having  been  lost,  is  re- 
stored."— Coun.  Trent,  Sess.  7,  Procemium,  and  canons  6,  7,  8  ; 
Bellarmine  de  Sacram.  2,  1. 

12.  How  may  this  doctrine  he  disproved  ? 

That  the  sacraments  have  not  the  jwwer  of  conveying  grace 
to  all,  whether  they  are  included  within  the  covenant  of  grace  ot 
not,  or  whether  they  possess  faith  or  not,  is  certain,  because — 

1st.  They  are  seals  of  the  gospel  covenant  (see  below,  question 
14).  But  a  seal  merely  ratifies  a  covenant  as  a  covenant.  It  can 
convey  the  grace  promised  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  condi- 
tions of  the  covenant  are  fulfilled.  But  salvation  and  every  sj^ir- 
itual  blessing  is  by  that  covenant  declared  to  depend  upon  the 
condition  of  faith. 

2d.  Knowledge  and  faith  are  required  as  tlie  prerequisite  con- 
ditions necessary  to  be  found  in  all  applicants,  as  the  essential 
qualification  for  receiving  the  sacraments,  Acts  ii.,  41  ;  viii ,  37  ; 
X.,  47  ;  Rom.  iv.,  11. 

3d.  Faith  is  essential  to  render  the  sacraments  cfiicacious, 
Rom.  ii.,  25-29  ;  1  Cor.  xi.,  27-29  ;  1  Pet.  iii.,  21. 

4th.  Many  who  receive  the  sacraments  are  notoriously  without 
the  grace  they  signify.  Witness  the  case  of  Simon  Magus,  Acts 
viii.,  9-21,  and  of  many  of  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians,  and  of 
,the  mayority  of  nominal  Christians  in  the  present  day. 


THEIR   EFFICACY.  475 

5th.  Many  have  had  the  grace  without  the  sacraments.  Wit- 
ness Abraham,  the  thief  upon  the  cross,  and  Cornelius  the  centu- 
rion, and  a  multitude  of  eminent  Christians  among  the  Society 
of  Friends. 

6th.  This  doctrine  blasphemously  ties  down  the  grace  of  the 
ever  living  and  sovereign  God,  and  puts  its  entire  disposal  into 
the  hands  of  fallible  and  often  wicked  men. 

7th.  This  doctrine  is  an  essential  element  of  that  ritualistic 
and  priestly  system  which  prevailed  among  the  Pharisees,  and 
against  which  the  whole  New  Testament  is  a  protest. 

8th.  The  uniform  effect  of  this  system  has  been  to  exalt  the 
power  of  the  priests,  and  to  confound  all  knowledge  as  to  the 
nature  of  true  religion.  As  the  baptized,  as  a  matter  of  f\ict,  do 
not  always  or  generally  bear  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  all  ritualists 
agree  in  regarding  these  fruits  as  not  essential  to  salvation. 
Where  this  system  prevails  vital  godliness  exphes. 

13.  What  efficacy  is  attributed  to  the  sacraments  by  the  Re- 
formed churches  ? 

That  they  signify,  seal,  and  actually  confer  the  blessings  of 
Christ's  redemption,  but  that  this  efficacy  is  not  in  the  sacra- 
ments themselves,  nor  in  any  virtue  derived  from  the  piety  or 
intention  of  him  by  whom  they  are  administered,  but  only  by 
the  working  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  blessing  of  Christ,  by 
whom  they  were  instituted,  and  that  this  efficacy  is  confined  to 
those  who  are  within  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  in  case  of  adults, 
to  the  worthy  recipients. — Conf.  Faith,  Chaps.  XXVII.  and 
XXVIII.  ;  L.  Cat.,  question  162  ,  S.  Cat.,  question  92. 

14.  How  may  the  correctness  of  the  Protestant  doctrine  be 
2Jroved  ? 

Ist.  As  far  as  this  doctrine  stands  opposed  to  the  Romish 
heresy,  it  is  established  by  the  arguments  presented  above,  under 
question  12. 

2d.  As  far  as  this  doctrine  stands  opposed  to  the  meager  Zu- 
inglian  or  rationalistic  view,  as  stated  above,  question  7,  it  may 
be  established  as  follows.  (1.)  That  the  sacraments  are  not  only 
signs  of  the  grace  of  Christ,  but  also  seeds  of  the  gospel  covenant 


476  SACRAMENTS. 

offering  us  that  grace  upon  the  condition  of  faith,  "  is  evident  froni 
the  fact  that  Paul  says  that  circumcision  is  the  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,  Eom.  iv.,  11,  And  that  the  apostle  regarded 
baptism  in  the  same  hght  is  evident  from  Col.  ii.,  11.  In  refer- 
ence to  the  Lord's  supper,  the  Saviour  said,  '  this  cup  is  the  new 
covenant  in  my  blood,'  i.  e.,  the  new  covenant  was  ratified  by  his 
blood.  Of  that  blood  the  cup  is  the  appointed  memorial,  and  it 
is  therefore  both  the  memorial  and  the  confirmation  of  the  cove- 
nant itself  ....  The  gospel  is  represented  under  the  form 
of  a  covenant.  The  sacraments  are  the  seals  of  that  covenant, 
God,  in  their  appointment,  binds  himself  to  the  fulfillment  of  his 
promises  ;  his  people,  by  receiving  them,  bind  themselves  to  trust 
and  serve  him.  This  idea  is  included  in  the  representation  given 
(Rom,  vi.,  3,  4),  in  the  formula  of  baptism,  and  in  all  those  pas- 
sages in  which  a  participation  of  Christian  ordinances  is  said  to 
include  a  profession  of  the  gospel."  (2.)  As  seals  attached  to  the 
covenant,  it  follows  that  they  actually  convey  the  grace  signified, 
as  a  legal  form  of  investiture,  to  those  to  whom,  according  to  the 
terms  of  the  covenant,  it  belongs.  Thus  a  deed,  when  signed  and 
sealed,  is  said  to  convey  the  property  it  represents,  because  it  is 
the  legal  form  by  which  the  intention  of  the  original  possessor  is 
publicly  expressed,  and  his  act  ratified.  It  is  on  this  ground  that 
in  Scripture,  as  in  common  language,  the  names  and  attributes 
of  the  graces  sealed  are  ascribed  to  the  sacraments  by  which  they 
are  sealed  and  conveyed  to  their  rightful  possessors. — Conf,  Faith, 
Chap,  XXVII.,  section  2.  They  are  said  to  wash  away  sin,  to 
unite  to  Christ,  to  save,  etc..  Acts  ii.,  38  ;  xxii.,  16  ;  Rom.  vi.,  2,  6  ; 
1  Cor.  X.,  16  ;  xii.,  13  ;  Gal.  iii.,  27  ;  Titus  iii.,  5.— Way  of  Life. 

15.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  ^^ intention"  as  connected 
with,  this  subject  ? 

Dens  (Vol  V.,  p.  127)  says,  "  To  the  valid  performance  of 
the  sacrament  is  required  the  intention  upon  the  part  of  the 
officiating  minister  of  doing  that  whicli  the  church  does.  The 
necessary  intention  in  the  minister  consists  in  an  act  of  his  will, 
by  which  he  wills  the  external  action  with  the  intention  of  doing 
what  the  church  does  ;"  that  is,  of  performing  a  valid  sacrament. 
Otherwise,  although  every  external  action  may  be  regularly  per- 
formed, the  whole  is  void.     See  Coun.  Trent,  Sess.  7,  canon  11. 


THEIR    NECESSITY.  477 

This  leaves  the  recipient  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  the  minister, 
since  the  validity  of  the  whole  service  depends  upon  his  secret 
intention,  and  is  evidently  one  of  the  devices  of  that  antichris- 
tian  church  to  make  the  people  dependent  upon  the  priesthood. 

16.  What  is  the  sense  in  tvhich  Protestants  admit  "intention" 
to  he  necessary  ? 

They  admit  that  in  order  to  render  the  outward  service  a  valid 
sacrament,  it  must  be  performed  with  the  ostensible  professed 
design  of  complying  thereby  with  the  command  of  Christ,  and  of 
doing  what  he  requires  to  be  done  by  those  who  accept  the  gospel 
covenant. 

17.  What  doctrine  do  the  ritualists  maintain  as  to  the  neces- 
sity of  the  sacraments  ? 

The  Romanists  distinguish,  1st,  between  a  condition  absolutely 
necessary  to  attain  an  end,  and  one  which  is  only  highly  conveni- 
ent and  helpful  in  order  to  it.  And,  2d,  between  the  necessity 
which  attaches  to  essential  means,-  and  that  obligation  which 
arises  from  the  positive  command  of  Grod.  Accordingly,  they 
hold  that  tlie  several  sacraments  are  necessary  in  different  re- 
spects. 

Baptism  they  hold  to  be  absolutely  necessary,  either  its  actual 
reception,  or  the  honest  purpose  to  receive  it,  alike  for  infants  and 
adults,  as  the  sole  means  of  attaining  salvation. 

Penance  they  hold  to  be  absolutely  necessary  in  the  same 
sense,  but  only  for  those  who  have  committed  mortal  sin  subse- 
quently to  their  baptism. 

Obders  they  hold  to  be  absolutely  nocessary  in  the  same  sense, 
yet  not  for  every  individual,  as  a  means  of  personal  salvation, 
but  in  respect  to  the  whole  church  as  a  community. 

Confirmation,  the  Eucharist,  and  Extreme  Unction  are 
necessary  only  in  the  sense  of  having  been  commanded,  and  of 
being  eminently  helpful 

Marriage  they  hold  to  be  necessary  only  in  this  second  sense, 
and  only  for  those  who  enter  into  the  conjugal  relation. — Cat. 
Rom.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  I.,  Q.  13. 

Puseyites,  and  high  churchmen  generally,  hold  the  dogma  of 


478  SACRAMENTS. 

"baptismal  regeneration,  and  of  course  the  consequence  that  bap- 
tism is  absolutely  necessary  as  the  sole  means  of  salvation. 

18.  What  IS  the  Protestant  doctrine  as  to  the  necessity  oj  the 
sacraments  f 

1st.  That  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  suppi'r 
were  instituted  by  Christ,  and  that  their  perpetual  observance  is 
obligator}'  upon  the  church  upon  the  ground  of  the  divine  precept. 
This  is  evident  (1.)  from  the  record  of  their  institution,  Matt. 
xxviii,.  19  ;  1  Cor.  xi.,  25,  26  ;  (2.)  from  the  examj)le  of  the 
apostles,  Acts  ii.  41 ;  viii.,  37  ;  1  Cor.  xi.,  23-28  ;  x.,  16-21. 

2d.  That  nevertheless  the  grace  offered  in  the  gospel  covenant 
does  not  reside  in  these  sacraments  physically,  nor  is  it  tied  to 
them  inseparably,  so  that,  although  obligatory  as  duties,  and 
helpful  as  means  to  those  who  are  prepared  to  receive  them,  they 
are  in  no  sense  the  essential  means,  without  which  salvation  can 
not  be  attained.  This  is  proved  by  the  arguments  jn-esented 
above,  under  question  12, 

19.  What  sacraments  impress  a  "  character"  according  to 
the  Romanists,  and  ivhat  do  they  mean  by  that  term  ? 

They  hold  that  the  effects  of  the  sacraments  are  twofold, 
1st,  sanctifying  grace,  which  is  an  effect  common  to  them  all. 
2d.  The  "  character"  they  impress,  which  is  an  effect  peculiar  to 
three,  baptism,  confinuation,  and  holy  orders.  This  "  sacramen- 
tal character"  (from  the  Greek  word  ;^;apa/cT7;p,  a  mark,  or  device, 
engraved  or.imj^ressed  by  a  seal)  is  a  distinctive  and  indelible 
impression  stamped  on  the  soul,  "  the  twofold  effect  of  which  is, 
that  it  qualifies  us  to  receive  or  perform  something  sacred,  and 
distinguishes  one  from  another."  It  is  upon  this  account  that 
baptism  and  confirmation  are  never  repeated,  and  that  the  au- 
thorit}'  and  privileges  of  the  priesthood  can  never  be  alienated. — 
Cat.  Kom.,  Part  II.,  Chap  I.,  Q.  18  and  19  ;  Council  Trent, 
Sess.  7,  can.  9. 

This  is  an  idle  conceit,  altogether  unsupported  by  Scripture. 


C  HAP  T  E  R     XX  XIX. 

baptism,  its  natuee  and  design,  mode,  subjects,  efficacy, 
and  necessity. 

The  natuke  and  design  of  baptism. 

1.  How  is  baptism  defined  in  our  standards  ? 

Con.  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXVIII.  L.  Cat.,  Q.  165.  S.  Cat., 
Q.  94. 

The  essential  points  of  this  definition  are,  1st,  it  is  a  washing 
with  water.  2d.  A  washing  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost.  3d.  It  is  done  with  the  design  to  "  signify  and  seal 
our  ingrafting  into  Christ,  and  jjar taking  of  the  benefits  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  and  our  engagement  to  be  the  Lord's." 

2.  What  is  essential  to  the  "matter"  of  baptism  ? 

As  to  its  "matter,"  baptism  is  essentially  a  washing  ivith 
water.  No  particular  mode  of  washing  is  essential,  1st,  because 
no  siich  mode  is  specified  in  the  command.  See  below,  questions 
7-17.  2d.  Because  no  such  mode  of  administration  is  essential 
to  the  proper  symbolism  of  the  ordinance.  See  below,  question 
6.  On  the  other  hand,  water  is  necessary,  1st,  because  it  is  com- 
manded. 2d.  Because  it  is  essential  to  the  symbolism  of  the  rite. 
It  is  the  natural  symbol  of  moral  purification,  Eph.  v.,  25,  26  ; 
and  it  was  established  as  such  in  the  ritual  of  Moses. 

3.  What  is  necessary  as  to  the  form  of  words  in  ivhich  bap- 
tism is  administered  ? 

It  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance  that  it  should 
be  administered  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."     This  is  certain,  1st,  because  it  is  included 


480  BAPTISM. 

in  the  command,  Matt,  xx-sdii.,  19.  2(1.  From  the  significaucy  of 
the  rite.  Besides  being  a  symbol  of  pm'ification,  it  is  essentially, 
as  a  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Christian  church,  a  covenanting 
ordinance  whereby  the  recipient  recognizes  and  pledges  his  allegi- 
ance to  God  in  that  character  and  in  those  relations  in  which  he 
has  revealed  himself  to  us  in  the  Scriptures.  The  formula  of 
bajjtism,  therefore,  is  a  summary  statement  of  the  whole  Scrip- 
ture doctrine  of  the  Triune  Jehovah  as  he  has  chosen  to  reveal 
himself  to  us,  and  in  all  those  relations  which  the  several  Persons 
of  the  Trinity  graciously  sustain  in  the  scheme  of  redemjition  to 
the  believer.  Hence  the  baptism  of  all  those  sects  which  reject 
the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  invalid. 

The  frequent  phrases,  to  be  baptized  in  "  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  or  "in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  or  "in  the  name  of 
the  Lord,"  (Acts  ii.  38  ;  x.,  48  ;  xix.,  5,)  do  not  at  all  present 
the  form  of  words  which  the  apostles  used  in  administering  this 
sacrament,  but  are  simply  used  to  designate  Christian  baptism  in 
distinction  from  that  of  John,  or  to  indicate  the  uniform  effect  of 
that  spiritual  grace  which  is  symbolized  in  baptism,  viz.,  union 
with  Christ,  Gal.  iii.,  27. 

4.  WJiat  is  the  meaning  of  the  formula  "  to  baptize  in  the  name 
(elg  TO  ovojua)  of  any  one"  ? 

To  be  baptized  "  in  the  name  of  Paul,"  {dg  to  ovo^a^)  1  Cor. 
i.,  13,  or  "  unto  Moses,"  {elg  rov  Mcovorjv,)  1  Cor.  x.,  2,  is,  on  the 
part  of  the  baptized,  to  be  made  the  believing  and  obedient  dis- 
ciples of  Paul  and  Moses,  and  the  objects  of  their  care,  and  the 
participants  in  whatever  blessings  they  have  to  bestow.  To  be 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  (Matt,  xxviii.,  19,)  or  "  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  (Acts  xix.,  5,)  or  "into  Jesus 
Christ,"  (Rom.  vi.,  3,)  is  by  baptism,  or  rather  by  the  grace  of 
which  ritual  baptism  is  the  sign  to  be  united  to  Christ,  or  to  the 
Trinity  through  Christ,  as  his  disciples,  believers  in  his  doctrine, 
heirs  of  his  promises,  and  participants  in  his  spiritual  life. 

5,  What  is  the  design  of  baptism  ? 
Its  design  is — 

Ist.  Primarily  J  to  signify  seal  and  convey  to  those  to  whom 
they  belong  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace.     Thus  (1.)    It 


EMBLEMATIC   IMPORT    OF    BAPTISM.  481 

symbolizes  "  the  washing  of  regeneration,"  "  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  which  unites  the  believer  to  Christ,  and  so  makes 
him  a  purlicipant  in  Christ's  life  and  all  other  benefits,  1  Cor.  xii,, 
13  ;  Gal.  iii.,  27  ;  Titus  iii.,  5.  (2.)  Christ  herein  visibly  seals 
his  promises  to  those  who  receive  it  with  faith,  and  invests  them 
with  the  grace  promised. 

2d.  Its  design  was,  secondarily,  as  springing  from  the  former, 
(1.)  to  be  a  visible  sign  of  our  covenant  to  be  the  Lord's,  i.  e.,  to 
accept  his  salvation,  and  to  consecrate  ourselves  to  his  service. 
(2.)  And,  hence,  to  be  a  badge  of  our  public  profession,  our  sepa- 
ration from  the  world,  and  our  initiation  into  the  visible  church. 
As  a  badge  it  marks  us  as  belonging  to  the  Lord,  and  consequently 
a  distinguishes  us  from  the  world,  b  symbolizes  our  union  with 
our  fello'vV-Christians,  1  Cor.  xii.,  13. 

6.    What  is  the  emblematic  import  of  baptism  ? 

In  every  sacrament  there  is  a  visible  sign  representing  an  in- 
visible grace.  The  sign  represents  the  grace  in  virtue  of  Christ's 
authoritatively  appointing  it  thereto,  but  the  selection  by  Christ 
of  the  particular  sign  is  founded  on  its  fitness  as  a  natural  em- 
blem of  the  grace  which  he  appoints  it  to  represent.  Thus  in  the 
Lord's  supper  the  bread  broken  by  the  officiating  minister,  and  the 
wine  poured  out,  are  natural  emblems  of  the  body  of  Christ  broken,, 
and  his  blood  shed  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins.  And  in  like  man- 
ner in  the  sacrament  of  baptism  the  application  of  water  to  the 
person  of  the  recipient  is  a  natural  emblem  of  the  "  washing  of 
regeneration,"  Titus  iii.,  5.  Hence  we  are  said  to  be  "  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  John  iii.,  5,  i.  e.,  regenerated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  of  which  new  birth  baptism  with  water  is  the  em- 
blem ;  and  to  be  baptized  "by  one  Spirit  into  one  body,"  i.  e.,  the 
spiritual  body  of  Christ ;  and  to  be  "  baptised  into  Christ,"  so  as 
"  to  have  put  on  Christ,"  Gal.  iii.,  27  ;  and  to  be  "  baptized  into 
his  death,"  and  to  be  "  buried  with  him  in  baptism  ...  so 
that  we  should  walk  with  him  in  newness  of  life,"  Rom.  vi.,  3,  4, 
because  the  sacrament  of  baptism  is  the  emblem  of  that  spiritual 
regeneration  which  unites  us  both  federally  and  spiritually  to 
Christ,  so  that  we  have  part  with  him  both  in  his  life  and  in  his 
death,  and  as  he  died  unto  sin  as  a  sacrifice,  so  we  die  unto  sin 
in  its  ceasing  to  be  the  controling  principle  o£  our  natures,  and  as. 

31 


482  BAPTISM. 

he  rose  again  in  the  resumption  of  liis  natural  life,  we  rise  to  the 
possession  and  exercise  of  a  new  spiritual  life. 

Baptist  interpreters,  on  the  other  hand,  insist  that  the  Bible 
teaches  that  the  outward  sign  in  this  sacrament,  being  the  immer- 
sion of  the  whole  body  in  water,  is  an  emblem  both  of  purifica- 
tion and  of  our  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  with  Christ.  Dr. 
Carson  says,  p.  381,  "  The  immersion  of  the  whole  body  is  essen- 
tial to  baptism,  not  because  nothing  but  immersion  can  be  an 
emblem  of  purification,  but  because  immersion  is  the  thing  com- 
manded, and  because  that,  without  immersion,  there  is  no  em- 
blem of  death,  burial  and  resurrection,  which  are  in  the  emblem 
equally  with  purification."  He  founds  his  assumption  that  the 
outward  sign  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism  was  designed  to  be  an 
emblem  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the  believer  in 
union  with  Christ,  upon  Eom.  vi.,  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.,  12. 

We  object  to  this  interpretation,  1st,  in  neither  of  those  pas- 
sages does  Paul  say  that  our  baptism  in  luater  is  an  emblem  of 
our  burial  with  Christ.  He  is  evidently  speaking  of  that  spir- 
itual baptism  of  which  water  baptism  is  the  emblem  ;  by  wliich 
spiritual  baptism  we  are  caused  to  die  unto  sin,  and  live  unto 
holiness,  in  which  death  and  new  life  we  are  conformed  unto  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  We  are  said  to  be  ''  baptised  into 
Christ,"  which  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  not  "  into  the  name  of 
Christ,"  which  is  the  phrase  always  used  when  speaking  of  ritual 
baptism,  Matt,  xxviii.,  19  ;  Acts  ii.,  38  ;  xix.,  5.  2d.  To  be 
"  baptized  into  his  death"  is  a  phrase  perfectly  analogous  to  bap- 
tism "  into  repentance,"  Matt,  iii.,  11,  and  "  into  ^remission  of 
sins,"  Mark  i.,  4,  and  "  into  one  body,"  1  Cor.  xii.,  13,  i.  e.,  in 
order  that,  or  to  the  efiect  that  we  participate  in  the  benefits  of 
his  death. 

3d.  The  Baptist  interpretation  involves  an  utter  confusion  in 
reference  to  the  emblem.  Do  they  mean  that  the  outward  sign 
of  immersion  is  n,n  emblem  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  or  of  the  spiritual  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  the 
believer  ?  But  the  point  of  comparison  in  the  passages  them- 
selves is  plainly  "  not  between  our  baptism  and  the  burial  and 
resuiTection  of  Ciuist,  but  between  our  death  to  sin  and  rising  to 
holiness,  and  the  death  and  resurrection  of  tlie  Kcdeemer." 
4tlju  Baptists  agree  with  us  that  baptism  with  Avater  is  an  em- 


MODE   OF   BAPTISM.  483 

blem  of  spiritual  purification,  i.  e.,  regeneration,  but  insist  that 
it  is  also  an  emblem  (in  the  mode  of  immersion)  of  the  death  of 
the  believer  to  sin  and  his  new  life  of  holiness. — Dr.  Carson,  p. 
143.  But  what  is  the  distinction  between  regeneration  and  a 
death  unto  sin,  and  life  unto  holiness  ? 

5th.  Baptists  agree  with  us  that  water  baptism  is  an  emblem 
of  purification.  But  surely  it  is  impossible  that  the  same  action 
should  at  the  same  time  be  an  emblem  of  a  washing,  and  of  a 
burial  and  a  resurrection.  One  idea  may  be  associated  with  the 
the  other  in  consequence  of  their  spiritual  relations,  but  it  is 
impossible  that  the  same  visible  sign  should  be  emblematical  of 
both. 

6th.  Our  union  with  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  and  the  spirit- 
ual consequences  thereof,  are  illustiated  in  Scripture  by  many 
various  figures,  c.  g.,  the  substitution  of  a  heart  of  flesh  for  a 
heart  of  stone,  Ezek.  xxxvi.,  26  ;  the  building  of  a  house,  Eph. 
ii.,  22  ;  the  ingrafting  of  a  limb  into  a  vine,  John  xv.,  5  ;  the 
putting  oif  of  filtliy  garments,  and  the  putting  on  of  clean,  Eph. 
iv.,  22-24  ;  as  a  spiritual  death,  burial  and  resurrection,  and  as  a 
being  planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  Rom.  vi.,  3-5  ;  as  the 
application  of  a  cleansing  element  to  the  body,  Ezek,  xxxvi.,  25. 
Now  baptism  with  water  represents  all  these,  because  it  is  an  em- 
blem of  spiritual  regeneration,  of  which  all  of  these  are  analogical 
illustrations.  Hence  we  are  said  to  be  "baptized  into  one  body," 
1  Cor.  xii.,  13,  and  by  baptism  to  "have  put  on  Christ,"  Gal.  iii., 
27.  Yet  it  would  be  absurd  to  regard  water  baptism  as  a  literal 
emblem  of  all  these,  and  our  Baptist  brethren  have  no  scriptural 
warrant  for  assuming  that  the  outward  sign  in  this  sacrament  is 
an  emblem  of  the  one  analogy  more  than  of  the  other.  See  Dr. 
Armstrong's  "  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,"  Part  II.,  Chap.  II. 

The  mode  of  baptism. 

7.  What  are  the  ivoi^ds  toMch,  in  the  original  language  of 
Scripture,  are  used  to  convey  the  command  to  baptize  ? 

The  primary  word  (iduTG)  occurs  four  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, (Luke  xvi.,  24,  John  xiii.,  26,  Rev.  xix.,  13,)  but  never  in 
connection  with  the  subject  of  Christian  baptism.  Its  classical 
meaning  was,  1st,  to  dip  ;  2d,  to  dye. 


484  BAPTISM. 

The  word  Pa-rrri^u),  in  form,  though  not  in  usage,  the  frequent- 
ative of  /SaTTTO),  occurs  seventy-six  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  is  the  word  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  convey  the  command 
to  baptize.  Its  classical  meaning  was  dip,  submerge,  sink.  Be- 
sides these,  we  have  the  nouns  of  the  same  root  and  usage, 
,3a7rri(7jwa  occurring  twenty-two  times,  translated  baptism,  and 
l3a7Triafj,6r  occurring  four  times,  translated  haptism,  Heb.  vi.,  2, 
and  ivasJiing,  Mark  vii.,  4,  8  ;  Heb.  ix.,  10.  The  only  question 
•with  which  we  are  concerned,  however,  is  as  to  the  scrip)tural 
usage  of  these  words.  It  is  an  important  and  universally  recog- 
nized principle,  that  the  biblical  and  classical  usage  of  the  same 
word  is  often  very  different.  This  effect  is  to  be  traced  to  the 
influence  of  three  general  causes. 

1st.  The  principal  classics  of  the  language  were  composed  in 
the  Attic  dialect.  But  the  general  language  used  by  the  Greek- 
speaking  world  at  the  Christian  era  was  the  "  common,  or  Hel- 
lenic dialect  of  the  later  Greek,"  resulting  from  the  fusion  of  the 
different  dialects  previously  existing. 

2d.  The  language  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  was 
again  greatly  modified  by  the  fact  that  their  vernacular  was  a 
form  of  the  Hebrew  language  (Syro-Chaldaic)  ;  that  their  con- 
stant use  of  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
had  largely  influenced  their  usage  of  the  Greek  language,  espe- 
cially in  the  department  of  religious  thought  and  expression  ;  and 
that,  in  the  very  act  of  composing  the  New  Testament  Scrip- 
tures, they  were  engaged  in  the  statement  of  religious  ideas,  and 
in  the  inauguration  of  religious  institutions  which  had  their  types 
and  symbols  in  the  ancient  dispensation,  as  revealed  in  the  sacred 
language  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

3d.  The  New  Testament  writings  are  a  revelation  of  new  ideas 
and  relations,  and  hence  the  words  and  phrases  through  which 
these  new  thoughts  are  conveyed  must  be  greatly  modified  in  re- 
spect to  their  former  etymological  sense  and  heathen  usage,  and 
"  for  the  full  depth  and  compass  of  meaning  belonging  to  them 
in  their  new  application  we  must  look  to  the  New  Testament 
itself,  comparing  one  passage  with  another,  and  viewing  the  lan- 
guage used  in  the  light  of  the  great  things  which  it  brings  to  our 
apprehension." 

As  exan^-ples  of  this  contrast  between  the  scriptural  and  clas- 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  485 

sical  usage  of  a  word,  observe,  dyyeXog^  angel  ;  npeofivTeQor^  |}re«- 
byfer  or  elder  ;  t:i{K?.7]aia,  church ;  (iaaiAeia  tov  Oeov,  or  rojv 
ovpavuVj  kingdom  of  God,  or  of  heaven  ;  rTaXtyyevFrjia,  regenera- 
tion ;  ;\;op<r,  grace,  etc.,  etc. — Fairbairn's  "  Hcrm.  Manual," 
Part  I.,  section  2. 

8.  What  is  the  2^osition  of  the  Baptist  churches  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Scriptural  ivord  (3anTi^u),  and  by  what  arguments  do 
they  seek  to  p)rove  that  immersion  is  the  only  valid  mode  of  bap- 
tism ? 

"  That  it  always  signifies  to  dip,  never  expressing  any  thing 
but  mode." — Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  55.  They  insist,  therefore, 
upon  always  translating  the  word  BaTrri^o)  and  /SuTTriana  by  the 
words  immerse  and  immersion. 

They  argue  that  immersion  is  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism, 
1st,  from  the  constant  meaning  of  the  word  Pa-nTi^u).  2d.  From 
the  symbolical  import  of  the  rite,  as  emblematic  of  burial  and 
resurrection.  3d.  From  the  practice  of  the  apostles.  4th.  From 
history  of  the  early  church, 

9.  What  is  the  position  occupied  upon  this  point  by  all  other 
Christians  ? 

1st.  It  is  an  established  principle  of  scriptural  usage  that  the 
names  and  attributes  of  the  things  signified  by  sacramental  signs 
are  attributed  to  the  signs,  and  on  the  other  hand  that  the  name 
of  the  sign  is  used  to  designate  the  grace  signified.  Thus,  Gen. 
xvii.,  11,  13,  the  name  of  covenant  is  given  to  circumcision  ; 
Matt,  xxvi.,  26-28,  Christ  called  the  bread  his  body,  and  the  wine 
his  blood  ;  Titus  iii.,  5,  baptism  is  called  the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion. Thus  also  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  are  often  used 
to  designate  that  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  regeneration,  which 
the  sign,  or  water  baptism,  signifies.  Matt,  iii.,  11  ;  1  Cor.  xii., 
13 ;  Gal.  iii.,  27  ;  Deut.  xxx.,  6.  It  follows  consequently  that 
these  words  are  often  used  in  a  spiritual  sense. 

2d.  These  words  when  relating  to  ritual  baptism,  or  the  sign 
representing  the  thing  signified,  imply  the  application  of  water  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity,  as  an  emblem  of  purification  or  spiritual 
regeneration,  and  never,  in  their  scriptural  usage,  signify  any 
thing  whatever  as  to  the  viode  in  which  the  water  is  applied. 


486  BAPTISM. 

I  have  answered,  under  question  6,  above,  the  second  baptist 
argument,  as  stated  under  question  8.  Their  Jirst  and  third  argu- 
ments, as  there  stated,  I  will  proceed  to  answer  now. 

10.  Hotv  may  it  be  proved  from  their  scriptural  usage  that 
the  loords  fia-rii^o)  and  fidnTtona  do  not  signify  immersion,  hut 
WASHING  to  effect  PURIFICATION,  without  any  reference  to  mode  ? 

1st.  The  word  occurs  four  times  in  the  Septuagint  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament,  in  three  of  which  instances  it  refers  to  bap- 
tism with  water.  2  Kings  v.,  14 — The  prophet  told  Naaman  to 
"  wash  and  be  clean/'  and  "  he  baptized  himself  in  Jordan,  and 
he  was  clean."  Eccle.  xxxiv.,  25 — "  He  that  baptiseth  himself 
after  the  touching  of  a  dead  body."  This  purification  according 
to  the  law  was  accomplished  by  sprinMing  the  ivater  of  separa- 
tion, Num.  xix.,  9, 13,  20.  Judith  xii.,  7,  Judith  "  baptized  her- 
self in  the  camp  at  a  fountain  of  water,"  Bathing  was  not  i)er- 
formed  among  those  nations  by  immersion  ;  and  the  circumstances 
in  which  Judith  was  placed  increase  the  improbability  in  her  case. 
It  was  a  purification  for  she  "  baptized  herself,"  and  "  so  came 
in  clean." 

2d.  The  question  agitated  between  some  of  John's  disciples 
and  the  Jews,  John  iii.,  22-30,  and  iv.,  1-3,  concerning  baptism 
is  called  a  question  concerning  ^2«-iy?ca^/oM,  Trept  icadagiofiov. 

3d.  Matt.  XV.,  2  ;  Mark  vii.,  1-5  ;  Luke  xi.,  37-39.  The 
word  [3aTTri^io  is  here  used  (1.)  for  the  customary  washing  of  the 
hands  before  meals,  which  was  designed  to  pmify,  and  was  habit- 
ually performed  by  pouring  water  upon  them,  2  Kings  iii.,  11 ; 
(2.)  it  is  interthanged  with  the  word  vltttcj,  which  always  signi- 
fies a  partial  washing  ;  (3.)  its  effect  is  declared  to  be  to  purify, 
KadapL^eiv  ;  (4.)  the  baptized  or  washed  hands  are  opposed  to  the 
unclean,  Koivalg 

4th.  Mark  vii.,  4,  8,  "  Baptism  of  pots  and  cups,  brazen  ves- 
sels, and  of  tables,"  kXIvm,  couches  upon  which  Jews  reclined  at 
their  meals,  large  enough  to  accommodate  several  jiersons  at  once. 
The  object  of  these  baptisms  was  purification,  and  the  mode  could 
not  have  been  immersion  in  the  case  of  the  tables,  couches,  etc, 

5th.  Hob.  ix.,  10,  Paul  says  the  first  tabernacle  "stood  only 
in  meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers  baj^tisms."  In  verses  13,  19,  21, 
he  specifies  some  of  these  "  divers  baptisms"  or  washings,  "  For 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  487 

if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprink- 
ling the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh/'  and 
"  Moses  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the  people,  and  the  tab- 
ernacle, and  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry," — Dr.  Armstrong's 
"  Doc.  of  Bapt.,"  Part  I. 

11.  WJiat  argument  in  favor  of  this  vieiu  of  the  suhject 
may  he  drawn  from  ivhat  is  said  of  baptism  ivith  the  Holy 
Ghost  ? 

Matt,  iii.,  11 ;  Mark  i.,  8  ;  Luke  iii.,  16  ;  John  i.,  26,  33  ; 
Acts  i.,  5  ;  xi.,  16  ;  1  Cor.  xii.,  13. 

If  the  word  (Sa-nTi^co  only  means  to  immerse,  it  would  be  inca- 
pable of  the  figurative  use  to  which,  in  these  passages,  it  is  actu- 
ally subjected.  But  if,  as  we  claim,  it  signifies  to  purify,  to 
cleanse,  then  water  baptism,  as  a  washing,  though  never  as  an 
immersion,  may  fitly  represent  the  cleansing  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.     See  next  question.  « 

12,  What  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  bles- 
sings symbolized  by  baptism  are  said  to  be  applied  by  sprinJcling 
and  pouring  ? 

The  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  grace  signified,  Acts  ii., 
1-4,  32,  33;  x.,  44-48;  xi,,  15,  16.  The  fire  which  did  not 
immerse  them,  but  appeared  as  cloven  tongues,  and  "  sat  upon 
each  one  of  them,"  Avas  the  sign  of  that  grace.  Jesus  was  him- 
self the  baptizer,  who  now  fulfilled  the  prediction  of  John  the 
Baptist  that  he  should  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire.  This  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  set  forth  in  such  terms  as 
"came  from  heaven,"  "poured  out,"  "shed  forth,"  "fell  on 
them," 

These  very  blessings  were  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament  by 
similar  language.  Is.  xliv.,  3  ;  Iii.,  15  ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.,  25-27  ;  Joel 
ii.,  28,  29.  Hence  we  argue  that  if  these  spiritual  blessings  were 
predicted  in  the  Old  Testament  by  means  of  these  figures  of 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  if  in  the  New  Testament  they  were 
symbolically  set  forth  under  the  same  form,  they  may,  of  course, 
be  symbolized  by  the  church  now  by  the  same  emblematical 
actions. 


488  BAPTISM. 

13.  What  argument  may  he  drawn  from  the  mode  of  imrijica- 
tion  adopted  under  the  Old  Testament  ? 

The  rites  of  purification  prescribed  by  the  Levitical  law  were 
in  no  case  commanded  to  be  performed  by  immersion  in  the  case 
of  persons.  Washing  and  bathing  is  prescribed,  but  there  is  no 
indication  given  by  the  words  used,  or  otherwise,  that  tliese  were 
performed  by  immersion,  which  was  not  the  usual  mode  of  bathing 
practiced  in  those  countries.  The  hands  and  feet  of  the  priests, 
whenever  they  appeared  to  minister  before  the  Lord,  were  washed, 
Ex.  XXX.,  18-21,  and  their  personal  ablutions  were  performed  at 
the  brazen  laver,  2  Chron.  iv.,  6,  from  which  the  water  poured 
forth  through  spouts  or  cocks,  1  Kings  vii.,  27-39.  On  the  other 
hand,  purification  was  freely  ordered  to  be  effected  by  sprinkling 
of  blood,  ashes,  or  water.  Lev.  viii.,  30  ;  xiv.,  7,  and  51  ;  Ex. 
xxiv.,  5-8  ;  Num.  viii.,  6,  7  ;  Heb.  ix.,  12-22.  Now,  as  Chris- 
tian baptism  is  a  purification,  and  as  it  was  instituted  among  the 
Jews,  familiar  with  the  Jewish  forms  of  purification,  it  follows 
that  a  knowledge  of  those  forms  must  throw  much  light  upon  the 
essential  nature  and  proper  mode  of  the  Christian  rite. 

14.  How  may  it  he  shown  from  1  Cor.  x.,  1,  2,  and  from  1 
Pet.  iii.,  20,  21,  that  to  baptize  does  not  mean  to  immerse  ? 

1  Cor.  x.,  1,  2.  The  Israelites  are  said  to  have  been  "  bap- 
tized unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Compare  Ex.  xiv., 
19-31.  The  Israelites  were  baptized,  yet  went  over  dry-shod. 
The  Egyptians  were  immersed,  yet  not  baptized.  Dr.  Carson, 
p.  413,  says,  Moses  "  got  a  dry  dip." 

1  Pet.  iii.,  20,  21.  Peter  declares  that  ba])tism  is  the  anti- 
type of  the  salvation  of  the  eight  souls  in  the  ark.  Yet  their  sal- 
vation consisted  in  their  not  being  immersed. 

15.  Was  the  baptism  of  John  Christian  baptism  ? 

John  was  the  last  Old  Testament  prophet,  Matt,  xi.,  13,  14. 
He  came  "  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,"  Luke  i.,  17,  in  the 
garb,  with  the  manners,  and  teaching  the  doctrine  of  the  ancient 
prophets.  He  preached  that  the  '"  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at 
hand,"  and  pointed  to  Jesus  as  the  Lamb  of  God.     His  baptism 


MODE   OF   BAPTISM.  489 

was  a  purification,  emblematic  of  repentance,  which  Christ  liad 
come  to  give,  Acts  v.,  31. 

It  was  not  Christian  baptism,  because,  1st,  it  was  not  adminis- 
tered in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  2d.  It  was  not  a  rite  of  initia- 
tion into  any  church,  John  himself  belonging  to  the  old  economy. 
3d.  Those  who  had  only  received  John's  baptism  were  rcbaptized 
by  Paul,  Acts  xviii.,  24-2G  ;  xix.,  1-7. 

16.  What  argument  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  baptism  is  to  he 
drawn  from  the  record  of  the  baptisms  performed  hy  John  ? 

1st.  John's  baptism  was  not  the  Christian  sacrament,  but  a 
rite  of  purification  administered  by  a  Jew  upon  Jews,  under 
Jewish  law.  From  this  we  infer  (1.)  that  it  was  not  performed 
by  immersion,  since  the  Levitical  purification  of  persons  was  not 
performed  in  that  way  ;  yet  (2J  that  he  needed  for  his  purpose 
either  a  running  stream  as  Jordan,  or  much  water  as  at  ^non 
(or  the  springs),  because  under  that  law  whatsoever  an  unclean 
person  touched  previous  to  his  purification  became  unclean.  Num. 
xix.,  21,  22,  with  the  exception  of  a  "  fountain  or  pit  in  which  is 
plenty  of  water,"  Lev.  xi.,  36,  which  he  could  not  find  in  the 
desert  in  which  he  preached.  After  the  gospel  dispensation  was 
introduced  we  hear  nothing  of  the  apostles  baptizing  in  rivers,  or 
needing  "  much  water"  for  that  purpose. 

2d.  In  no  single  instance  is  it  stated  in  the  record  that  John 
baptized  by  immersion.  All  the  language  employed  applies  just 
as  naturally  and  as  accurately  to  a  baptism  performed  by  afi'usion 
(the  subject  standing  partly  in  the  water,  the  baptizer  pouring 
water  upon  the  person  with  his  hand.)  The  phrases  "  baptized 
in  Jordan,"  "  coming  out  of  the  water,"  would  have  been  as  accu- 
rately applied  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  That  John's  bap- 
tism was  more  probably  performed  by  affusion  appears  (1.)  from 
the  fact  that  it  was  a  purification  performed  by  a  Jewish  i)rophet 
upon  Jews,  and  that  Jewish  washings  were  performed  by  afi'usion. 
The  custom  was  general  then,  and  has  continued  to  this  day. 
(2.)  This  mode  bettor  accords  with  the  vast  multitudes  bap- 
tized by  one  man,  Matt,  iii.,  5,  6  ;  Mark  i.,  5  ;  Luke  iii.,  3-21. 
(3.)  The  very  earliest  works  of  Christian  art  extant  represent  the 
baptism  of  Christ  by  John  as  having  been  performed  by  afi'usion. — 
Dr.  Armstrong's  "  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,"  Part  II.,  Chap.  Ill, 


490  BAPTISM. 

17.  What  evidence  is  afforded  hy  the  instances  of  Christian 
baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

1st.  It  has  been  abundantly  shown  above  that  the  command 
to  baptize  is  a  command  to  purify  by  washing  with  water,  and 
it  hence  follows  that  even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  apostles 
baptized  by  immersion,  that  fact  would  not  prove  that  particular 
mode  of  washing  to  be  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance, 
unless  it  can  be  proved  also  that,  according  to  the  analogies  of 
gospel  institutions,  the  mere  mode  of  obeying  a  command  is  made 
as  essential  as  the  thing  itself.  But  the  reverse  is  notoriously  the 
fact.  The  church  was  organized  on  certain  general  principles, 
and  the  public  worship  of  the  gospel  ordained,  but  the  details  as 
to  the  manner  of  accomplishing  those  ends  are  not  prescribed. 
Christ  instituted  tlie  Lord's  supper  at  night,  reclining  on  a  couch, 
and  with  unleavened  bread.  Yet  in  none  of  these  respects  is  the 
"  mode"  essential. 

2d.  But,  in  fact,  there  is  not  one  instance  in  which  the  record 
makes  it  even  probable  that  the  apostles  baptized  by  immersion, 
and  in  the  gi'eat  majority  of  instances  it  is  rendered  in  the  last 
degree  improbable. 

(1.)  The  baptism  of  the  Eunuch  by  Philip,  Acts  viii.,  26-39, 
is  the  only  instance  which  even  by  appearance  favors  immersion. 
But  observe  a  the  language  used  by  Luke,  even  as  rendered  in 
our  version,  applies  just  as  naturally  to  baptism  performed  by 
affusion  as  by  immersion,  h  The  Greek  prepositions,  elq,  here 
translated  into,  and  in,  here  translated  out  of,  are  in  innumerable 
instances  used  to  express  motion,  toioard,  unto  and  from,  Acts 
xxvi.,  14  ;  xxvii.,  34,  40.  They  probably  descended  from  the 
chariot  to  the  brink  of  the  water.  Philip  is  also  said  to  have 
"  descended  to"  and  to  have  "  ascended  from  the  water,"  but 
surely  he  was  not  also  innuersed.  c  The  very  passage  of  Isaiah, 
which  the  Eunuch  was  reading.  Is.  lii.,  15,  declared  that  the 
Messiah,  in  whom  he  believed,  should  "  sprinkle  many  nations." 
d  Luke  says  the  place  was  "  a  desert,"  and  no  body  of  water  suf- 
ficient for  immersion  can  be  discovered  on  that  road.  (2.)  Every 
other  instance  of  Christian  baptism  recorded  in  the  Scriptures 
bears  evidence  positively  against  immersion,  a  The  baptism  of 
three  thousand  in  Jerusalem  on  one  occasion  on  the  day  of  Pen- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  491 

tecost,  Acts  ii.,  38-41.  h  The  baptism  of  Paul,  Acts  ix.,  17, 18  ; 
xxii.,  12-16.  Annauias  said  to  him  "  standing  w\),  be  baptized," 
avaora^  Pdnrioai,  and,  "standing,  up  he  was  baptized."  c  The 
baptism  of  Cornelius,  Acts  x.,  44-48.  d  The  baptism  of  the 
jailor,  at  Philippi,  Acts  xvi.,  32-34.  In  all  these  instances  bap- 
tism was  administered  on  the  spot,  wherever  the  convert  received 
the  gospel.  Nothing  is  said  of  rivers,  or  much  water,  but  vast 
multitudes  at  a  time,  and  individuals  and  families  were  baptized 
in  their  houses,  or  in  prisons,  wherever  they  happened  to  be  at 
the  moment. 

Subjects  of  baptism. 

18.  Who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ? 

Conf.  Faith,  Chap.  XXVIII.,  section  4  ;  L.  Cat.,  question 
166  ;  S.  Cat.,  question  95. 

All  those,  and  those  only,  who  are  members  of  the  visible 
church,  are  to  be  baptized.  These  are,  1st,  they  who  make  a 
credible  profession  of  their  faith  in  Christ ;  2d,  the  children  of 
one  or  both  believing  parents. 

19.  What  in  the  case  of  adults  are  the  prerequisites  of  bap- 
tism ? 

Credible  profession  of  their  faith  in  Jesus  as  their  Saviour. 
This  is  evident,  1st,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  ordinance  as 
symbolizing  spiritual  gifts,  and  as  sealing  our  covenant  to  be  the 
Lord's.  See  below,  Chap.  XL.,  question  23.  2d.  From  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists,  Acts  ii.,  41 ; 
viii.,  37. 

20.  What  is  the  visible  church,  to  which  baptism  is  the 
initiating  rite  ? 

1st.  The  word  church,  hKlrjaia,  is  used  in  Scripture  in  the 
general  sense  of  the  company  of  God's  people,  called  out  from  the 
world,  and  bound  to  him  in  covenant  relations. 

2d.  The  true  spiritual  church,  therefore,  in  distinction  to  the 
phenominal  church  organized  on  earth,  consists  of  the  whole  com- 
pany of  the  elect,  who  are  included  in  the  eternal  covenant  of 


492  BAPTISM. 

grace  formed  between  the  Father  and  the  second  Adam,  Eph,  v., 
27  ;  Hcb.  xii.,  23. 

3d.  But  the  visible  church  universal  consists  of  "  all  those 
throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together  with 
their  children,  and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  pos- 
sibility of  salvation,"  Conf  Faith,  Chap.  XXV.,  section  2.  This 
visible  kingdom,  Christ,  as  Mediator  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  has 
instituted,  as  an  administrative  provision,  for  the  purpose  of  ad- 
ministering thereby  the  provisions  of  that  covenant ;  and  this 
kingdom,  as  an  outward  visible  society  of  professors,  he  established 
by  the  covenant  he  made  with  Abraham,  Gen.  xii.,  1-3  ;  xvii., 
1-14. 

4th.  Christ  has  administered  this  covenant  in  three  successive 
modes  or  dispensations.  (1.)  From  Abraham  to  Moses,  during 
which  he  attached  to  it  the  ratifying  seal  of  circumcision.  (2.) 
From  Moses  to  his  advent,  (for  the  law  which  was  temporarily 
added  did  not  make  the  promise  of  none  effect,  but  rather  admin- 
istered it  in  a  special  mode.  Gal.  iii.,  17,)  he  added  a  new  seal, 
the  passover,  emblematic  of  the  atoning  work  of  the  promised 
seed,  as  set  forth  in  the  clearer  revelation  then  vouchsafed.  (3.) 
From  Christ  to  the  end  of  the  world,  when  the  promise  being 
unfolded  in  an  incomparably  fuller  revelation,  the  original  seals 
are  superseded  by  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  See  below, 
question  21. 

5th.  That  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  designed  to  embrace 
the  visible  church  of  Christ,  and  not  his  mere  natural  seed  in 
their  family  or  national  capacity,  is  plain.  (1.)  It  pledged  sal- 
vation by  Christ  on  the  condition  of  faith.  Compare  Gen.  xii.,  3, 
with  Gal.  iii.,  8,  16  ;  Acts  iii.,  25,  26.  (2.)  The  sign  and  seal 
attached  to  it  symbolized  spiritual  blessings,  and  sealed  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  Deut.  x.,  15,  16  ;  xxx.,  6  ;  Jer.  iv.,  4 ;  Rom.  ii., 
28,  29  ;  iv,,  11.  (3.)  This  covenant  was  made  with  him  as  the 
representative  of  the  visible  church  universal,  a  It  was  made 
with  him  as  the  "  father  of  many  nations."  Paul  said  it  consti- 
tuted him  the  "  heir  of  the  world,"  "  the  flither  of  all  them  that 
believe,"  Rom.  iv.,  11,  13,  and  that  all  believers  in  Christ  now, 
Jew  or  Gentile,  are  "  Abraham's  seed  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promise,"  Gal.  iii,,  29.     h  It  contained  a  provision  for  the  intro- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  493 

tluction  to  its  privileges  of  those  who  were  not  born  of  the  natu- 
ral seed  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.,  12.  Multitudes  of  such  prose- 
lytes had  been  thus  introduced  before  the  advent  of  Christ,  and 
luany  such  were  present  in  Jerusalem  as  members  of  the  church 
under  its  old  form  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  "  out  of  eveiy  nation 
under  heaven,"  Acts  ii.,  5-11. 

6th.  That  the  church  thus  embraced  in  this  administrative 
covenant  is  not  the  body  of  the  elect,  as  such,  but  the  visible 
church  of  professors  and  their  children,  is  evident,  because,  (1.) 
the  covenant  contains  the  offer  of  the  gospel,  including  the  setting 
forth  of  Christ,  and  the  offer  of  his  salvation  to  all  men  (all  the 
families  of  the  earth)  on  the  condition  of  faith,  Gal.  iii.,  8.  But 
this  belongs  to  the  visible  church,  and  must  be  administered  by 
means  of  inspired  oracles  and  a  visible  ministry.  (2.)  As  an  in- 
disputable fact,  there  was  such  a  visible  society  under  the  old 
dispensation  ;  and  under  the  new  dispensation  all  Christians, 
whatever  theories  they  may  entertain,  attempt  to  realize  the  ideal 
of  such  a  visible  society,  for  Christian  and  ministerial  commu- 
nion. (3.)  Under  both  dispensations  Christ  has  committed  to 
his  church,  as  to  a  visible  kingdom,  written  records,  sacramental 
ordinances,  ecclesiastical  institutions,  and  a  teaching  and  ruling 
ministry.  Although  these  are  all  designed  to  minister  the  pro- 
visions of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  to  effect-  as  their  ultimate 
end  the  ingathering  of  the  elect,  it  is  evident  that  visible  signs 
and  seals,  a  written  word  and  a  visible  ministry,  can,  as  such, 
attach  only  to  a  visible  church,  Rom.  ix.,  4  ;  Eph.  iv.,  11.  (4.) 
The  same  representation  of  the  church  is  given  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, in  the  parable  of  the  tares,  etc..  Matt,  xiii.,  24-30,  and 
47-50  ;  XXV.,  1-13.  It  was  to  consist  of  a  mixed  community  of 
good  and  evil,  true  and  merely  professed  believers,  and  the  sepa- 
ration is  not  to  be  made  until  the  "  end  of  the  world." 

7th.  This  visible  church  from  the  beginning  has  been  trans- 
mitted and  extended  in  a  twofold  manner.  (1.)  Those  who  are 
born  "strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,"  or  "  aliens  from 
the  commonwealth  of  Israel,"  Eph.  ii.,  12,  were  introduced  to 
that  relation  only  by  profession  of  faith  and  conformity  of  life. 
Under  the  old  dispensation  these  are  called  i^roschjtcs,  Acts  ii., 
10  ;  Num.  xv.,  15.  (2.)  All  born  Avithili  the  covenant  had  part 
in  all  of  th€  benefits  of  a  standing  in  the  visible  church  by  inheri- 


494  BAPTISM. 

tance.  The  covenant  was  with  Abraham  and  his  "  seed  after 
Mm,  in  all  their  generations,  as  an  everlasting  covenant,"  and 
consequently  they  received  the  sacrament  which  was  the  sign 
and  seal  of  that  covenant.  Hence  the  duty  of  teaching  and  train- 
ing was  engrafted  on  the  covenant,  Gen.  xviii.,  18,  19  ;  and  the 
church  made  a  school,  or  training  institution,  Deut.  \n.,  6-9.  In 
accordance  Avith  this,  Christ  commissioned  his  apostles  to  disciple 
all  nations,  baptizing  and  teaching  them.  Matt,  xxviii.,  19,  20. 
Thus  the  church  is  represented  as  a  flock,  including  the  lambs  with 
the  sheep,  Is.  xl.,  11,  and  as  a  vineyard  in  which  the  scion  is 
trained,  the  barren  tree  cultivated,  and.  if  incurable,  cut  down. 
Is.  V.  1-7  ;  Luke  xiii.,  7,  8. 

21.  Hoio  may  it  he  shown  that  this  visible  church  is  identical 
under  both  dispetisations,  and  lohat  argument  may  be  thence  de- 
rived to  prove  that  the  infant  children  of  believers  should  be  bap- 
tized ? 

1st.  The  church,  under  both  dispensations,  has  the  same  na- 
ture and  design.  The  Old  Testament  church,  embraced  in  the 
Abrahamic  convenant,  rested  on  the  gospel  oiFer  of  salvation  by 
faith,  Gal.  iii.,  8  ;  Heb.  xi.  Its  design  was  to  prepare  a  spiritual 
seed  for  the  Lord.  Its  sacraments  symbolized  and  sealed  the 
same  grace  as  those  of  the  New  Testament  church.  Thus  the 
passover,  as  the  Lord's  supper,  represented  the  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
1  Cor.  v.,  7.  Circumcision,  as  baptism,  represented  "  the  put- 
ting off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  and  baptism  is  called  by 
Paul  "  the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  Col.  ii.,  11,  12.  Even  the 
ritual  of  tlie  Mosaic  law  was  only  a  symbolical  revelation  of  the 
gospel. 

2d.  They  bear  precisely  the  same  name.  tKKXrjaia  kvqiov,  the 
church  of  the  Lord,  is  an  exact  rendering  in  Greek  of  the  Hebrew 
"  ;"■:  ^\iT'.  ti-anslated  in  our  version  the  "  congregation  of  the  Lord." 
Compare  Ps.  xxii.,22,  with  Heb.  ii.,  12,  Thus  Stephen  called 
the  congregation  of  Israel  before  Sinai  "  the  church  in  the  wilder- 
ness." Compare  Acts  vii.,  38,  with  Ex.  xxxii.  Thus  also  Christ 
is  the  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  Messiah,  and  the  elders  of  the 
New  Testament  church  are  indentical  in  function  and  name  with 
those  of  the  synagogue. 

3d.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  furnished  by  the  apostolical 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  495 

records  t}iat  the  ancient  church  was  abolished  and  a  new  and  a  differ- 
ent one  organized  in  i  ts  place.  The  apostles  never  say  one  word  about 
any  such  new  organization.  The  preexistence  of  such  a  visible 
society  is  everywhere  taken  for  granted  as  a  fact.  Their  disciples 
were  always  added  to  the  "church"  or  "congregation"  previously 
existing,  Acts  ii.,  47.  The  Mosaic  ritual  law,  by  means  of  which 
the  Abrahamic  character  of  the  church  had  been  administered  for 
about  fifteen  hundred  years,  was  indeed  abolished.  But  Paul 
argues  that  the  introduction  of  this  law,  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after,  could  not  make  the  promise  of  none  effect,  Gal.  iii., 
17,  and  consequently  the  disannulling  of  the  law  could  only  give 
place  to  the  more  perfect  execution  of  the  covenant,  and  develop- 
ment of  the  church  embraced  within  it. 

4th.  There  is  abundant  positive  evidence  that  the  ancient 
church,  resting  upon  its  original  charter,  was  not  abolished  by 
the  new  dispensation.  (1.)  Many  of  the  Old  Testament  prophe- 
cies plainly  declare  that  the  then  existing  visible  church,  instead 
of  being  abrogated  by  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  should  thereby 
be  gloriously  strengthened  and  enlarged,  so  as  to  embrace  the 
Gentiles  also.  Is.  xlix.,  13-23,  and  Ix.,  1-14.  They  declare  also 
that  the  federal  constitution,  embracing  the  child  with  the  parent, 
shall  continue  under  the  new  disjiensation  of  the  church,  after 
"  the  Redeemer  has  come  to  Zion,"  Is.  lix.,  21,  22.  Peter,  in 
Acts  iii.,  22,  23,  expounds  the  prophecy  of  Moses,  Deut.  xviii., 
15-19,  to  the  effect  that  every  soul  which  wnll  not  hear  that  prophet 
(the  Messiah)  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  the  people,  i.  c,  from 
the  church,  which  of  course  implies  that  the  church  from  which 
they  are  cut  off  continues.  (2.)  In  precise  accordance  witli  these 
prophecies  Paul  declares  that  the  Jewish  church  was  not  abro- 
gated, but  that  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  cut  off  from  tlieir  own 
olive  tree,  and  the  Gentile  branches  grafted  in  in  their  place  ;  and  he 
foretells  the  time  when  God  will  graft  the  Jews  back  again  into 
their  own  stock  and  not  into  another,  Rom.  xi.,  18-26.  He  says 
that  the  alien  Gentiles  are  made  fellow-citizens  with  believing 
Jews  in  the  old  household  of  the  faith,  Eph.  ii.,  11-22.  (3.)  The 
covenant  which  constituted  the  ancient  church  also  constituted 
Abraham  the  father  of  many  nations.  The  promise  of  the  covenant 
was  that  God  would  '-'be  a  God  unto  him  and  to  his  seed  after 
him."     This  covenant,  therefore,  embraced  the  "many  nations" 


496  BAPTISM. 

with  tlieir  father  Abraham.  Hence  it  never  could  have  been  ful- 
filled until  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  abolishment  of  the 
restrictive  law.  Hence  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  instead  of  hav- 
ing been  superseded  by  the  gospel,  only  now  begins  to  have  its 
just  accomplishment.  Hence,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter 
exhorts  all  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  because  the  Al)rahamic 
covenant  still  held  in  force  for  all  Jews  and  for  their  children,  and 
for  all  those  afar  off,  i.  e.,  Gentiles,  as  many  as  God  should  call, 
Acts  ii.,  38,  39.  Hence  also  Paul  argued  earnestly  that  since  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  is  still  in  force,  therefore,  from  its  very  terms, 
the  Gentiles  who  should  believe  in  Christ  had  a  right  to  a  place 
in  that  ancient  church,  which  was  founded  upon  it,  on  equal  terms 
with  the  Jews.  "  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed,  so  then," 
says  Paul,  "  they  which  be  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful 
Abraham,"  and  all  who  believe  in  Christ,  Jew  or  Gentle  indis- 
criminately, "  are"  to  the  full  intent  of  the  covenant,  "  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise,"  Gal.  iii.,  6-29,  which 
promise  was,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee." 

The  bearing  of  this  argument  upon  the  question  of  infant 
baptism  is  direct  and  conclusive. 

1st.  Baptism  now  occupies  the  same  relation  to  the  covenant 
and  the  church  which  circumcision  did.  (1.)  Both  rites  repre- 
sent the  same  spiritual  grace,  namely,  regeneration,  Dcut.  xxx., 
6  ;  Col.  ii.,  11  ;  Rom.  vi.,  3,  4.  (2.)  Baptism  is  now  what  cir- 
cumcision was,  the  seal,  or  confirming  sign,  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant.  Peter  says,  "  be  baptized  for  the  promise  is  to  you 
and  to  your  children,"  Acts,  ii.,  38,  39.  Paul  says  explicitly  that 
])aptism  is  the  sign  of  that  covenant,  "for  as  many  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise,'"'  Gal.  iii.,  27,  29  ;  and  that  baptism  is  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ,  Col.  ii.,  10, 11.  (3.)  Both  rites  are  the  appointed 
forms,  in  successive  eras,  of  initiation  into  the  church,  which  we 
have  proved  to  be  the  same  church  under  both  dispensations. 

2d.  Since  the  church  is  the  same,  in  the  absence  of  all  explicit 
command  to  the  contrary,  the  members  are  the  same.  Children 
of  believers  were  members  then.  They  ought  to  be  recognized 
as  members  now,  and  receive  the  initiatory  rite.  This  the  apostles 
took  for  granted  as  self-evident,  and  universally  admitted  ;  an 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  497 

explicit  command  to  baptize  would  have  implied  doubt  in  the 
ancient  church  rights  of  infants. 

3d.  Since  the  covenant,  with  its  promise  to  be  "  a  God  to  the 
believer  and  his  seed/'  is  expressly  declared  to  stand  firm  under 
the  gospel,  the  believer's  seed  have  a  right  to  the  seal  of  that 
promise. — Dr.  John  M.  Mason's  "  Essays  on  the  Church." 

22.  Present  the  evidence  that  Christ  recognized  the  church 
standing  of  children. 

1st.  Christ  declares  of  little  children  (Matthew,  naidta,  Luke 
tipecpT},  infants)  that  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  Matt, 
xix.,  14  ;  Luke  xviii.,  16.  The  phrase  "  kingdom  of  God  and 
of  heaven"  signifies  the  visible  church  under  the  new  dispensation, 
Matt,  iii.,  2  ;  xiii.,  47. 

2d.  In  his  recommission  of  Peter,  after  his  apostasy,  our  Lord 
commanded  him  as  under  shepherd  to  feed  the  lambs,  as  well  as 
the  sheep  of  the  flock,  John  xxi.,  15-17. 

3d.  In  his  general  commission  of  the  apostles,  he  commanded 
them  to  disciple  nations  (which  are  always  constituted  of  fami- 
lies) by  baptizing,  and  then  teaching  them.  Matt,  xxviii.,  19,  20. 

23.  Shoiv  that  the  apostles  always  acted  on  the  principle  that 
the  child  is  a  church  member  if  the  parent  is. 

The  apostles  were  not  settled  pastors  in  the  midst  of  an  estab- 
lished Christian  community,  but  itinerant  missionaries  to  an  un- 
believing world,  sent  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel,  1 
Cor.  i.,  17.  Hence  we  have  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles  the  record 
of  only  ten  separate  instances  of  baptism.  In  two  of  these,  viz.,, 
of  the  eunuch  and  of  Paul,  Acts  viii.,  38  ;  ix.,  18,  there  were  no 
families  to  be  baptized.  In  the  case  of  the  three  thousand  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  the  people  of  Samaria,  and  the  disciples  of  John 
at  Ephesus,  crowds  were  baptized  on  the  very  spot  on  which  they 
professed  to  believe.  Of  the  remaining  five  instances,  in  the  four 
cases  in  which  the  family  is  mentioned  at  all,  it  is  expressly  said 
they  were  baptized,  viz.,  the  households  of  Lydia  of  Thyatira,  of 
the  jailer  of  Philippi,  of  Stephanas,  and  of  Crispus,  Acts  xvi.,  15,. 
32,  33  ;  xviii.,  8 ;  1  Cor.  i.,  16.  In  the  remaining  instance  of  Cor- 
nelius, the   record   implies   that   the  family  was  also  baptized. 

32 


498  BAPTISM. 

Thus  tliG  apostles  in  every  case,  without  a  single  recorded  excep- 
tion, baptized  believers  on  the  spot,  and  whenever  they  had  fami- 
lies, they  also  baptized  their  households,  as  such. 

They  also  addressed  children  in  their  epistles  as  members  of 
the  church.  Compare  Eph.  i.,  1,  and  Col.  i.,  1,  2,  with  Eph.  vi., 
1-3,  and  Col.  iii.,  20.  And  declared  that  even  the  children  of 
only  one  believing  parent  were  to  be  regarded  "  holy,"  or  conse- 
crated to  the  Lord,  **.  e.,  as  church  members,  1  Cor.  vii.,  12-14. 

24.  What  argument  mag  he  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the 
blessings  symbolized  in  baptism  are  promised  and  granted  to 
children  ? 

Baptism  represents  regeneration  in  union  with  Christ.  In- 
fants are  born  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others.  They  can  not 
be  saved,  therefore,  unless  they  are  born  again,  and  have  part  in 
the  benefits  of  Christ's  death.  They  are  evidently,  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  in  the  same  sense  capable  of  being  subjects  of 
regeneration  as  adults  are.  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven," 
Matt,  xxi.,  15,  16  ;  Luke  i.,  41,  44. 

25.  What  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  practice  of  the 
early  church  ? 

The  practice  of  infant  baptism  is  an  institution  which  exists 
as  a  foct,  and  prevails  throughout  the  universal  church,  with  the 
exception  of  the  modern  Baptists,  whose  origin  can  be  definitely 
traced  to  the  Anabaptists  of  Germany,  about  A.  D.  1537.  Such 
an  institution  must  either  have  been  handed  down  from  the  apos- 
tles, or  have  had  a  definite  commencement  as  a  novelty,  which 
must  have  been  signalized  by  opposition  and  controversy.  As  a 
fact,  however,  we  find  it  noticed  in  the  very  earliest  records  as  a 
universal  custom,  and  an  apostolical  tradition.  This  is  acknowl- 
edged by  Tertullian,  born  in  Carthage,  A.  D.  160,  or  only  sixty 
years  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John.  Origen,  born  of  Chris- 
tian parents  in  Egypt,  A.  D.  185,  declares  that  it  was  "the  usage 
of  the  church  to  baptize  infants,"  and  that  "  the  chuich  had  re- 
ceived the  tradition  from  the  apostles."  St.  Augustin,  born  A.  D. 
354,  declares  that  this  "doctrine  is  held  by  the  whole  church, 
jDot  instituted  by  councils,  but  always  retained." 


SUBJECTS   OF    BAPTISM.  499 

26.  How  is  the  objection,  that  faith  is  a  prerequisite  to  hap- 
tism,  and  that  infants  can  not  believe,  to  be  ansioered  ? 

The  Baptists  argue,  1st,  from  the  commission  of  the  Lord, 
"  Go  preach — he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ; 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  Mark  xvi.,  16,  that  in- 
fants ought  not  to  be  baptized  because  they  can  not  believe.  2d. 
From  the  nature  of  baptism,  as  a  sign  of  a  spiritual  grace  and 
seal  of  a  covenant,  that  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized  since 
they  are  incapable  of  understanding  the  sign,  or  of  contracting 
the  covenant. 

We  answer,  1st,  the  requisition  of  faith  evidently  applies 
only  to  the  adult,  because  faith  is  made  the  essential  prerequisite 
of  salvation,  and  yet  infants  are  saved,  though  they  can  not  be- 
lieve. 2d.  Circumcision  was  a  sign  of  a  spiritual  grace  ;  it  re- 
quired faith  in  the  adult  recipient,  and  it  was  the  seal  of  a  cove- 
nant ;  yet,  by  God's  appointment,  infants  were  circumcised.  The 
truth  is  that  faith  is  required,  but  it  is  the  faith  of  the  parent 
acting  for  his  child.  The  covenant  of  which  baptism  is  the  seal 
is  contracted  with  the  parent,  but  as  it  embraces  the  child  the 
seal  is  properly  applied  to  it  also. 

27.  Hoiu  can  we  avoid  the  conclusion  that  infants  'should  he 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper,  if  they  are  admitted  to  baptism  ? 

The  same  reason  and  the  same  precedents  do  not  hold  in  re- 
lation to  both  sacraments.  1st.  Baptism  recognizes  and  seals 
church  membership,  while  the  Lord's  supper  is  a  commemorative 
act.  2d.  In  the  action  of  baptism  the  subject  is  passive,  and  in 
that  of  the  Lord's  supper  active.  3d.  Infants  were  never  admitted 
to  the  Passover  until  they  were  capable  of  comprehending  the 
nature  of  the  service.  4th.  The  apostles  baptized  households, 
but  never  admitted  households  as  such  to  the  supper. 

28.  Whose  childreii  ought  to  be  baptized  '^ 

"  Infants  of  such  as  are  members  of  the  visible  church,"  S. 
Cat.,  Q.  95  ;  that  is,  theoretically,  "  infants  of  one  or  both  be- 
lieving parents,"  Con.  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXVIII.,  sec.  4  ;  and 
practically,  "  of  parents,  one  or  both  of  them  professing  faith  in 
Christ." — L.  Cat.,  Q.  166.     Roman  Catholics,  Episcopalians,  the 


500  BAPTISM. 

Protestants  of  the  continent,  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland  (and 
formerly  of  this  country),  act  upon  the  jirinciple  that  every  bap- 
tized person,  not  excommunicated,  being  himself  a  member  of  the 
visible  church,  has  a  right  to  have  his  child  regarded  and  treated  as 
such  also. 

It  is  evident,  however,  from  the  following  principles,  that  only 
the  children  of  those  who  are  professors  of  a  personal  faith  in 
Christ  ought  to  be  baptized.  1st.  The  examj)le  of  the  apostles. 
They  baptized  the  households  only  of  believers.  2d.  Faith  is  the 
condition  of  the  covenant.  If  the  parent  is  destitute  of  faith,  the 
transaction  is  a  mockery.  3d.  Those  who,  having  been  baptized 
in  infancy,  do  not  by  faith  and  obedience  discharge  their  baptismal 
vows  when  they  are  of  mature  age,  forfeit  their  own  birthright, 
and  of  course  can  not  plead  its  benefits  for  their  children. 

The  efficacy  of  baptism. 

29.  What  is  the  Romish  and  High  Church  doctrine  as  to  the 
efficacy  of  baptism  ? 

The  Romish  doctrine,  with  which  the  high  church  doctrine 
essentially  agrees,  is,  1st,  that  baptism  confers  the  merits  of  Christ 
and  th(^  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  (1.)  it  cleanses 
from  inherent  corruption  ;  (2.)  it  secures  the  remission  of  the 
penalty  of  sin  ;  (3.)  it  secures  the  infusion  of  sanctifying  grace  ; 
(4.)  it  unites  to  Christ  ;  (5.)  it  impresses  upon  the  soul  an  in- 
delible character  ;  (6.)  it  opens  the  portals  of  heaven. — Cat.  Rom., 
Pt.  II.,  Chap.  II.,  Q.  32-44.  2d.  That  the  efficacy  of  the  ordi- 
nance is  inherent  in  itself  in  virtue  of  the  divine  institution.  Its 
virtue  does  not  depend  either  on  the  merit  of  the  officiating  min- 
ister, nor  on  that  of  the  recipient,  but  in  the  sacramental  action 
itself  as  an  opus  operatum.  In  the  case  of  infants,  tlie  only  con- 
dition of  its  efficiency  is  the  right  administration  of  the  ordinance. 
In  the  case  of  adults  its  efficiency  depends  upon  the  additional 
condition  that  the  recipient  is  not  in  mortal  sin,  and  does  not  re- 
sist by  an  opposing  Avill. — Dens  De  Baptismo,  N.  29. 

30,  Whcd  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

Tiie  Lutlicrans  agreed  with  the  Reformed  churches  in  repudi- 
ating the  Eomisli  doctrine  of  the  magical  efficacy  of  this  sacra- 


EFFICACY    OF    BAPTISM.  501 

ment  as  an  opus  opcratum.  But  the}'^  went  much  further  than  the 
Reformed  in  maintaininc;  the  sacramental  union  between  the  sicn 
and  the  grace  signified.  Luther,  in  his  Small  Cat.,  Pt.  IV.,  sec. 
2,  says  baptism,  "  worketh  forgiveness  of  sins,  delivers  from  death 
and  the  devil,  and  confers  everlasting  salvation  on  all  who  believe," 
and,  in  sec.  3,  that  "it  is  not  the  water  indeed  which  produces 
these  effects,  but  the  word  of  God  which  accompanies,  and  is  con- 
nected with  the  water,  and  our  faith,  which  relies  on  the  word  of 
Grod  connected  with  the  water.  For  the  water  without  the  word 
is  simplj'  water  and  no  baptism.  But  when  connected  with  the 
word  of  God,  it  is  a  baptism,  that  is,  a  gracious  water  of  life,  and 
a  washing  of  regeneration." 

31.    What  ivas  the  Zuinglian  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

That  the  outward  rite  is  a  mere  sign,  an  objective  rej)resen- 
tation  by  symbol  of  the  truth,  having  no  efficacy  whatever  beyond 
that  due  to  the  truth  represented. 

32.    What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches,  and  of  our 
own  among  the  number,  07i  this  subject  ? 

They  all  agree,  1st,  that  the  Zuinglian  view  is  incomplete. 

2d.  That  besides  being  a  sign,  baptism  is  also  the  seal  of 
grace,  and  therefore,  a  present  and  sensible  conveyance  and  con- 
firmation of  grace  to  the  believer  Avho  has  the  witness  in  himself, 
and  to  all  the  elect  a  seal  of  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
to  be  sooner  or  later  conveyed  in  God's  good  time. 

3d.  That  this  conveyance  is  effected,  not  by  the  bare  opera- 
tion of  the  sacramental  action,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
accompanies  his  own  ordinance. 

4th.  That  in  the  adult  the  reception  of  the  blessing  depends 
upon  faith. 

5th.  That  the  benefits  conveyed  by  baptism  are  not  peculiar 
to  it,  but  belong  to  the  believer  before  or  without  bajstism,  and 
are  often  renewed  to  him  afterwards. 

Our  Conf  Faith,  Chap.  XXVIII.,  sections  5  and  6,  afiirms, 

"  1st.  '  That  by  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance  the  grace 
promised  is  not  only  ofiered,,  but  really  exhibited  and  conferred 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  such,  (whether  of  age  or  infants,)  as  that 
grace  belongeth  unto.' 


502  *  BAPTISM. 

"  2d.  That  baptism  does  not  in  all  cases  secure  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant. 

"  3d.  That  in  the  cases  in  which  it  does  the  gift  is  not  con- 
nected necessarily  in  time  with  the  administration  of  the  ordi- 
nance. 

"  4th.  That  these  blessings  depend  upon  two  things  :  (1.)  the 
right  use  of  the  ordinance  ;  (2.)  the  secret  purpose  of  God." — 
Dr.  Hodge. 

The  necessity  of  baptism. 

33.  What  is  the  Romish  and  Lutheran  doctrine  as  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  baptism  ? 

They  hold  that  the  benefits  conveyed  by  baptism  are  ordi- 
narily conveyed  in  no  other  way,  and  consequently,  baptism  is 
absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  salvation,  both  for  infants  and 
adults. — Conn.  Trent,  Sess.  7,  canon  4  ;  Cat.  Kom.,  Part  II., 
Chap.  II.,  question  28  ;  Bellarmine  Bapt.,  1,  4 ;  Augsburg  Conf., 
article  9.  The  Papists  except  from  this  absolute  necessity  mar- 
tyrs, and  those  who,  desiring,  can  not  obtain  baptism. 

34.  What  is  the  doctrine  on  this  point  of  the  Reformed 
churches  '( 

They  all  agree  that  the  necessity  of  baptism  arises  simply 
from  the  command  of  Christ  to  baptize  ;  and  that  the  grace  sig- 
nified belongs  to  all  within  the  covenant,  (whether  adult  or  in- 
fant,) and  would  be  attained  by  them  with  or  without  the  sign 
and  seal.— Conf  Faith,  Chap.  XXVIII.,  section  5;  Calvin's 
Institutes,  4,  16,  26. 

35.  What  opinion  has  prevailed  as  to  lay  haptism  ? 

The  Romanists  and  Lutherans  believing  in  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  b.iptism  as  a  means  of  salvation,  have  consequently  always 
allowed  the  validity  of  baptism  administered  by  laymen  in  cases 
of  necessity.  The  Reformed,  on  the  other  hand,  not  believ- 
ing the  ordinance  to  be  necessary  to  salvation,  have  uniformly 
agi-ced  that  baptism  is  to  be  regarded  valid  only  when  adminis- 
tered by  a  regularly  ordained  minister. 


CHAPTER     XL. 

THE      lord's      supper. 

1.  What  arc  the  various  phrases  used  in  Scripture,  to  desig- 
nate the  Lord's  supper,  and  their  import  ? 

1st.  "Lord's  Supper,"  1  Cor.  xi.,  20.  The  Greek  word 
detTTvov,  translated  supper,  designated  tlie  dinner,  or  principal 
meal  of  the  Jews,  taken  towards  or  in  the  evening.  Hence  this 
sacrament  received  this  name  because  it  was  instituted  at  that 
meal.  It  was  called  the  "  Lord's,"  because  it  was  instituted  by 
him,  to  commemorate  his  death,  and  signify  and  seal  his  grace. 

2d.  "  Cup  of  blessing,"  1  Cor.  x.,  16.  The  cup  was  blessed 
by  Christ,  and  the  blessing  of  God  is  now  invoked  upon  it  by  the 
officiating  minister.  Matt,  xxvi.,  26,  27. 

3d.  "  Lord's  Table,"  1  Cor.  x.,  21.  Table  here  stands  by  a 
usual  figure  for  the  provisions  spread  upon  it.  It  is  the  table  at 
which  the  Lord  invites  his  guests,  and  at  which  he  presides. 

4th.  "  Communion,"  1  Cor.  x.,  16.  In  partaking  of  this  sac- 
rament, the  fellowship  of  the  believer  with  Christ  is  establislied 
and  exercised  in  a  mutual  giving  and  receiving,  and  consequently 
also  the  fellowship  of  believers  with  one  another,  through  Christ. 

5th.  "  Breaking  of  bread,"  Acts  ii.,  42,  Here  the  symbolical 
action  of  the  officiating  minister  is  put  for  the  whole  service. 

2.  Bi/  lohat  other  terms  was  it  designated  in  the  early  church  ? 

1st.  "  Eucharist,"  from  ivxapiareco,  to  give  thanks.  See  Matt, 
xxvi.,  27.  This  beautifully  designates  it  as  a  thanksgiving  ser- 
vice. It  is  both  the  cup  of  thanksgiving,  whereby  we  celebrate 
the  grace  of  God  and  pledge  our  gratitude  to  him,  and  the  cup 
of  blessing,  or  the  consecrated  cup. 


504  THE  lord's  supper. 

2d.  "  Ivva^ig^"  a  coming  together,  because  the  sacrament  was 
administered  in  the  public  congregation. 

3d.  '' Aetrovpyia/'  a  sacred  ministration,  applied  to  the  sacra- 
ment by  way  of  eminence.  From  this  word  is  derived  the  Eng- 
lish word  liturgy. 

4th.  "  Qvaia,"  sacrifice  offering.  "  This  term  was  not  applied 
to  the  sacrament  in  the  proper  sense  of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice. 
But  (1.)  because  it  was  accompanied  with  a  collection  and  obla- 
tion of  alms  ;  (2.)  because  it  commemorated  the  true  sacrifice  of 
Christ  on  the  cross ;  (3.)  because  it  was  truly  a  eucharistical  sac- 
rifice of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  Heb.  xiii.,  15  ;  (4.)  because,  in 
the  style  of  the  ancients,  every  religious  action,  whereby  we  con- 
secrate any  thing  to  God  for  his  glory  and  our  salvation,  is  called 
a  sacrifice." 

5th.  'Aydnrj.  The  Agapse,  or  love  feasts,  were  meals  at  which 
all  the  communicants  assembled,  and  in  connection  with  which 
they  received  the  consecrated  elements.  Hence  the  name  of  the 
feast  was  given  to  the  sacrament  itself 

6th.  Mf  (TTTypiov,  a  mystery,  or  a  symbolical  revelation  of  truth, 
designed  for  the  special  benefit  of  initiated  Christians.  This  was 
applied  to  both  sacraments.  In  the  Scriptures  it  is  applied  to  all 
the  doctrines  of  revelation,  Matt,  xiii.,  11  ;  Col.  i.,  26. 

7th.  Missa,  mass.  The  principal  designation  used  by  the 
Latin  church.  The  most  probable  derivation  of  this  term  is  from 
the  ancient  fornmla  of  dismission.  When  the  sacred  rites  were 
finished  the  deacons  called  out,  "  Ite,  missa  est,"  go  it  is  dis- 
charged.— Turrettin,  L.  19,  Q.  21. 

3.  Hoio  is  this  sacrament  defined,  and  what  are  the  essential 
points  included  in  the  definition  ? 

See  L.  Cat.,  Q.  168  ;  S.  Cat.,  Q.  96. 

The  essential  points  of  this  definition  are,  1st,  the  elements, 
bread  and  wine,  given  and  received  according  to  the  appointment 
of  Jesus  Christ.  2d.  The  design  of  the  recipient  of  doing  this  in 
obedience  to  Christ's  appointment,  in  remembrance  of  him,  to 
show  forth  his  death  till  he  come.  3d.  The  promised  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  sacrament  by  his  Spirit,  "so  that  the  worthy  re- 
ceivers are  not  after  a  corporeal  and  carnal  manner,  but  by  faith, 


BREAKING   OF   BREAD,  505 

made  partakers  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  with  all  his  benefits, 
to  their  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace." 

4.  What  Icind  of  bread  is  to  he  used  in  the  sacrament,  and 
what  is  the  usage  of  the  different  dmrches  on  this  point  / 

Bread  of  some  kind  is  essential,  1st,  from  the  comjnand  of 
Christ ;  2d,  from  the  significancy  of  the  symbol  ;  since  bread,  as 
the  principal  natural  nourishment  of  our  bodies,  represents  his 
flesh,  which,  as  living  bread,  he  gave  for  the  life  of  the  world, 
John  vi.,  51.  But  the  kind  of  bread,  whether  leavened  or  un- 
leavened, is  not  specified  in  the  command,  nor  is  it  rendered  essen- 
tial by  the  nature  of  the  service.  Lutherans  and  many  Baptists 
maintain  that  the  use  of  unleavened  bread  is  essential.  The 
Romis'i  church  uses  unleavened  bread,  although  she  does  not 
afiirm  it  to  be  essential. — Cat.  Rom.,  Pt.  II.,  Chap.  IV.,  Q.  13. 
The  Greek  church  uses  leavened  bread. 

5.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  dlvog,  wine,  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  hoiu  does  it  appear  that  loine  and,  no  other  liquid 
must  be  used  in  the  Lord's  supper  ? 

It  is  evident  from  the  usage  of  this  word  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  it  was  designed  by  the  sacred  writers  to  designate  the 
fermented  juice  of  the  grape.  Matt,  ix.,  17  ;  John  ii.,  3-10  ;  Rom. 
xiv.,  21  ;  Eph.  v.,  18  ;  1  Tim.  iii.,  8  ;  v.,  23  ;  Titus  ii.,  3. 

The  Romish  church  contends,  on  the  authority  of  tradition, 
that  water  should  be  mingled  ■with  the  wine.  But  this  has  not 
been  commanded,  nor  is  it  involved  in  any  way  in  the  symbolical 
significancy  of  the  rite.  That  wine  and  no  other  liquid  is  to  be 
used  is  clear  from  the  record  of  the  institution.  Matt,  xxvi.,  26- 
29,  and  from  the  usage  of  the  apostles. 

6.  Hoiv  does  it  appear  that  breaking  the  bread  is  an  impor- 
tant part  of  the  service  ? 

1st.  The  example  of  Christ  in  the  act  of  institution,  which  is 
particularly  noticed  in  each  inspired  record  of  the  matter,  Matt, 
xxvi.,  26  ;  Mark  xiv.,  22  ;  Luke  xxii.,  19  ;  1  Cor.  xi.,  24. 

2d.  It  is  prominently  set  forth  in  the  reference  made  by  the 
apostles  to  the  sacrament  in  the  epistles,  1  Cor.  x.,  16.  The  en- 
tire service  is  designated  from  this  one  action. 


506  THE  lord's  supper. 

3d.  It  pertains  to  the  symbolical  significancy  of  the  sacrament. 
(1.)  It  represents  the  breaking  of  Christ's  body  for  us,  1  Cor.  xi., 
24.  (2.)  It  represents  the  communion  of  believers,  being  many  in 
one  body,  1  Cor.  x.,  17. 

7.  What  is  the  prope7'  {nfe7-pretation  of  1  Cor.  x.,  16,  and  in 
what  sense  are  the  elements  to  he  blessed  or  consecrated  ? 

The  phrase  to  bless  is  used  in  Scripture  only  in  three  senses, 
1st,  to  bless  God,  i.  e.,  to  declare  his  praises,  and  to  utter  our 
gratitude  to  him.  2d.  To  confer  blessing  actually,  as  God  does 
upon  his  creatures.  3d.  To  invoke  the  blessing  of  God  upon  any 
person  or  thing. 

The  "  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless"  is  the  consecrated  cup 
upon  which  the  minister  has  invoked  the  divine  blessing.  As  the 
blessing  of  God.  is  invoked  upon  food,  and  it  is  thus  consecrated 
unto  the  end  of  its  natural  use,  1  Tim.  iv.,  5,  so  the  elements  are 
set  apart  as  sacramental  signs  of  an  invisible  spiritual  grace,  to 
the  end  of  showing  forth  Christ's  death,  and  of  ministering  grace 
to  the  believing  recipient,  by  the  invocation  by  the  minister  of 
God's  blessing  in  the  promised  presence  of  Christ  through  his 
Spirit. 

8.  WJiat  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  ? 

Transubstantiation  means  "  conversion  of  substance,"  and  is 
used  by  the  Romanists  to  designate  their  dogma  that  Avhen  the 
words  of  consecration  are  pronounced  by  the  priest  the  whole 
substance  of  the  bread  is  changed  into  the  very  body  of  Christ 
which  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  and  is  now  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father  in  heaven,  and  the  whole  substance  of  the 
wine  is  changed  into  the  blood  of  Christ,  while  only  the  species 
or  visible  appearance  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain,  accidents 
without  a  substance  ;  and  that,  together  with  his  real  flesh  and 
blood,  the  entire  person  of  the  God-man,  humanity  and  divinity, 
is  really  physically  present. — Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  13.,  Cans.  1 
and  2  ;  Cat.  Rom.,  Pt.  II.,  Chap.  IV.,  Q.  22. 

Almost  immediately  after  the  apostolic  age  the  Christian 
church  began  to  leave  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  to  exalt 
the  outward  s3'mbols  and  services  of  religion  above  the  s])iritual 
truth  which  they  represented.     Thus  gradually  the  New  Testa- 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION,  507 

ment  ministry  became  a  priesthood,  and  more  and  more  supersti- 
tious views  were  entertained  as  to  the  efficacy  and  necessity  of  the 
sacraments,  and  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  literal  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  is  physically  present  in  the  supper.  The  doctrine 
in  its  present  form,  however,  was  first  defined  and  affirmed  by 
Paschasius  Radbert,  abbot  of  Corbey,  A.  D.  831.  After  many  con- 
troversies it  was  first  decreed  as  an  article  of  faith  and  a  univers- 
ally recognized  dogma  of  the  church,  and  designated  by  the  term 
transubstantiation,  at  the  instance  of  Innocent  III.,  by  the  fourth 
Lateran  Council,  A.  D.  1215.— Moshcim  Eccl.  Hist.,  Cen.  IX,  Pt. 
II.,  Chap.  III.,  and  Cen.  XIII.,  Pt.  II.,  Chap.  III. 

9.  Present  an  outline  of  the  argument  against  this  Popish  doc- 
trine ? 

1st.  The  Romanists  seek  to  establish  their  doctrine  by  three 
arguments,  (1.)  Scripture,  (2.)  tradition,  (3.)  decisions  of  councils. 
But  we  have  above,  (Chap.  V.),  proved  that  the  Scriptures  are 
the  only  rule  of  faith  and  judge  of  controversies.  Their  scriptural 
authority  is  nothing  more  than  the  language  used  by  Christ  in 
instituting  the  sacrament,  Matt,  xxvi.,  26.  They  claim  that  the 
word  "  is"  must  be  understood  literally.  Protestants  insist,  on 
the  contrary,  that  this  word,  from  the  plain  sense  of  the  passage, 
and  from  the  analogy  of  Scripture  usage  in  many  other  passages, 
simply  means  represents,  symbolizes. — See  Gen.  xli.,  26,  27 ;  Ex. 
xii.,  11  ;  Dan.  vii.,  24  ;  Rev.  i.,  20. 

2d.  Paul  calls  one  of  the  elements  bread,  as  well  after  as  be- 
fore its  consecration,  1  Cor.  x.,  16  ;  xi.,  26-28. 

3d.  This  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  their  own  definition  of 
a  sacrament.  They  agree  with  Protestants  and  with  the  fathers 
in  distinguishing,  in  every  sacrament,  two  things,  viz.,  the  sign 
and  the  thing  signified.  See  above.  Chap.  XXXVIII.,  question 
2.  But  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  confounds  these  to- 
gether. 

4th.  The  senses,  when  exercised  in  their  proper  sphere,  are  as 
much  a  revelation  from  God  as  any  other.  No  miracle  recorded 
in  the  Bible  contradicted  the  senses,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  re- 
ality of  the  miracle  was  established  by  the  testimony  of  the  senses. 
See  the  transubstantiation  of  water  into  wine,  John  ii.,  1-10,  and 
Luke  xxiv.,  36-43.     But  this  doctrine  flatly  contradicts  our  senses, 


508  THE  lord's  supper. 

since  we  see,  smell,  taste  and  touch  the  bread  and  wine  as  well 
after  their  consecration  as  before. 

5tli.  Reason  also,  in  its  proper  sphere,  is  a  divine  revelation, 
and  though  it  may  be  transcended,  never  can  be  contradicted  by 
any  other  revelation,  supernatural  or  otherwise.  See  above,  Chap. 
II.,  question  11.  But  this  doctrine  contradicts  the  principles  of 
reason  (1.)  with  respect  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  body,  by  sup- 
posing that,  although  it  is  material,  it  may  be,  without  division, 
wholly  present  in  heaven,  and  at  many  different  places  on  earth 
at  the  same  time.  (2.)  In  maintaining  that  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  present  in  the  sacrament,  yet  without  any  of  their 
sensible  qualities,  and  that  all  the  sensible  qualities  of  the  bread 
and  wine  are  present,  while  the  bodies  to  which  they  belong  are 
absent.  But  qualities  have  no  existence  apart  from  the  bodies 
to  which  they  belong. 

6th.  This  doctrine  is  an  inseparable  part  of  a  system  of  priest- 
craft entirely  antichristian,  including  the  worship  of  the  host,  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  hence  the  entire  substitution  of  the  priest 
and  his  Avork  in  the  place  of  Christ  and  his  work.  It  also  blas- 
phemously subjects  the  awful  divinity  of  our  Saviour  to  the  con- 
trol of  his  sinful  creatures,  who  at  their  own  will  call  him  down 
from  heaven,  and  withhold  or  communicate  him  to  the  people. 

10.  What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  consuhstantiation  ? 

Consubstantiation  (literally  constituting  of  the  same  sub- 
stance) was  the  term  used  by  Luther  to  designate  his  doctrine, 
that  while  the  bread  and  wine  continue  the  same  that  they  were 
before,  and  what  they  appear  to  our  senses  to  be,  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  nevertheless  literally  and  corporeally  present 
in  a  miraculous  manner,  in^  with,  and  under  the  sensible  ele- 
ments. 

This  view  agrees  with  that  of  the  Romanists,  in  asserting — 

1st.  A  real  corporeal  and  local  presence  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  in  the  sacrament. 

2d.  That  they  are  received  by  the  mouth. 

3d.  That  they  are  received  equally  by  the  believer  and  un- 
believer. 

But  it  differs  from  the  Romish  doctrine,  in  denying — 


CONSUBSTANTIATION.  509 

1st.  That  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed. 

2d.  That  the  union  of  the  person  of  Christ  with  the  elements 
is  effected  by  the  power  of  the  officiating  priest. 

3d.  In  confining  the  presence  of  Christ's  person  within  and 
under  the  elements  to  the  very  moment  of  the  sacramental  cele- 
bration. It  follows  that  although  this  doctrine  is  false,  absurd, 
and  injurious,  it  is  by  no  means  so  fatally  dangerous  as  that  of 
transubstantiation.  It  does  not  lead  to  the  idolatrous  worship 
of  the  host,  to  the  denial  of  the  cup  to  the  laity,  nor  to  the  anti- 
christian  sacrifice  of  the  mass. 

11.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches  as  to  the 
nature  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  supper  ? 

On  account  of  the  controversy  on  the  subject  of  the  real  pres- 
ence which  raged  immediately  after  the  Keformation,  between  the 
Lutherans  and  the  Reformed,  and  between  Calvin  and  the  imme- 
diate followers  of  Zuingle,  the  early  Eeformed  Confessions  were 
composed  generally  under  the  bias  of  an  effort  to  compromise 
radically  distinct  views,  and  hence  a  want  of  definitcness  and  con- 
sistency in  their  statements  upon  this  subject  has  resulted.  In 
all  essentials,  however,  they  agree,  and  immediately  after  the  age 
of  controversy,  the  language  of  all  the  confessions  subsequently 
composed,  and  of  theological  writers,  became  both  distinct  and 
uniform.     They  agree  in  holding — 

1st.  That  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  confined  to  heaven. 

2d.  That  the  presence  of  his  body  and  blood  in  the  sacrament 
is  not  physical,  nor  local,  nor  to  our  bodily  senses,  but  only  by 
its  gracious  influences  to  the  mind,  and  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

3d.  That  they  are  received  only  by  the  true  believer,  not  by 
the  mouth,  but  only  spiritually,  in  the  exercise  of  faith.  See 
Consensus  Tigminus,  article  21 ;  Helv.  Conf ,  Chap.  XXI. — Bib. 
Rep.,  April,  1848. 

12.  What  is  meant  by  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  as  received 
in  the  sacrament  ? 

"  The  Avhole  church  united  in  saying  that  believers  received 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.     They  agi-eed  in  explaining  this 


510  THE   lord's   supper. 

to  mean  that  they  received  the  virtue,  efficacy,  or  vigor  of  his 
body  and  blood.  But  some  understood  thereby,  the  virtue  of  his 
body  as  broken,  and  his  blood  as  shed,  i.  e.,  their  sajcrificial  effi- 
cacy. Others  said,  that  besides  this,  there  was  a  mysterious  vir- 
tue in  the  body  of  Christ,  due  to  its  union  with  the  divine  nature, 
which  virtue  was  by  the  Holy  Spirit  conveyed  to  the  believer." 
Tlie  first  view,  or  that  which  limits  the  reception  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood  to  their  sacrificial  efficacy,  is  the  true  one,  and  the  only 
one  which  maintained  its  ground  in  the  faith  of  the  Reformed 
churches. — Bib.  Rep.,  April,  1848. 

13.  What  is  meant  hy  feeding  upon  the  body  and  blood  of 
Ghi'ist,  as  used  in  the  Reformed  confessions  ? 

"  All  the  Reformed  agree  as  to  the  following  particulars  : 
"  1st.  This  eating  was  not  with  the  mouth  in  any  manner, 
"  2d.  It  was  only  by  the  soul  that  they  were  received. 
"  3d.  It  was  by  faith,  which  is  declared  to  be  the  hand  and 

mouth  of  the  soul. 

"  4th.  It  was  by  or  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
"  But  this  receiving  Christ's  body  is  not  confined  to  the  Lord's 

supper  ;  it  takes  place  whenever  faith  in  him  is  exercised." — Bib. 

Rep.,  April,  1848. 

14.  What  is  the  Zuinglian  doctrine  as  to  the  relation  be- 
tween the  sign  and  the  thing  signified  in  the  supper  ? 

The  bread  and  wine  in  this  view  are  regarded  as  simply  signs, 
symbolizing  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  sacrificially  broken  and 
shed.  There  is  no  other  presence  of  Christ  than  as  he  is  thought 
of  and  believed  in  by  the  soul. 

15.  In  tvhat  sense  and  on  lohat  ground  do  the  Romanists  re- 
present the  eucharist  as  a  sacrifice  ? 

"  The  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  an  external  oblation  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  offered  to  God  in  recognition  of  his  supreme 
Lordshij),  under  the  appearance  of  bread  and  wine  visibly  exhibited 
by  a  legitimate  minister,  with  the  addition  of  certain  prayers  and 
ceremonies  prescribed  by  the  church  for  the  greater  worship  of 
God  and  edification  of  the  people." — Dens,  Vol.  V.,  p.  358. 


SACRIFICE   OF   THE   MAS3.  511 

With  respect  to  its  end  it  is  to  be  distinguislied  int-o,  1st, 
Latrenticiim,  or  an  act  of  supreme  worship  offered  to  God.  2d. 
Eucharisticum,  thanksgiving.  3d.  Propitiatorium,  atoning  for 
sin,  and  propitiating  God  by  the  offering  up  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  again.  4th.  Imperatorium,  since  througli  it  we 
attain  to  many  spiritual  and  temporal  blessings. — Dens,  Vol.  v., 
p.  368. 

Tlie  difference  between  the  eucharist  as  a  sacrament  and  a 
sacrifice  is  very  great,  and  is  twofold  ;  as  a  sacrament  it  is  per- 
fected by  consecration,  as  a  sacrifice  all  its  efficacy  consists  in  its 
oblation.  As  a  sacrament  it  is  to  the  worthy  receiver  a  source  of 
merit,  as  a  sacrifice  it  is  not  only  a  source  of  merit,  but  also  of 
satisfaction,  expiating  the  sins  of  the  living  and  the  dead. — Cat. 
Rom.,  Pt.  II.,  Chap.  lY.,  Q.  55  ;  Council  Trent,  Sess.  22. 

They  found  this  doctrine  ujion  the  authority  of  the  church, 
and  absurdly  appeal  to  Mai.  i.,  11,  as  a  propliecy  of  this  perpetu- 
ally recurrent  sacrifice,  and  to  the  declaration,  Heb.  vii.,  17,  that 
Christ  is  "a  priest  for  ever,  after  the  order  of  Melcliisedec,"  who, 
say  they,  discharged  his  priestly  functions  in  offering  bread  and 
wine  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xiv.,  18, 

16.  Hoio  may  this  doctrine  he  refuted  ? 

1st.  It  has  no  foundation  whatever  in  Scripture.  Their  ap- 
peal to  the  prophecy  in  Malachi,  and  to  the  typical  relation  of 
Melchizedcc  to  Christ,  is  sclf-evidently  absurd. 

2d.  It  rests  wholly  upon  the  fiction  of  transubstantiation, 
which  was  disproved  above,  question  9. 

3d.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross  was  i)erfect,  and  from 
its  essential  nature  excludes  all  others,  Heb.  ix.,  25-28  ;  x.,  10- 
14,  and  18,  26,  27. 

4th.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  words  of  institution  pronounced 
by  Christ,  Luke  xxii.,  19,  and  1  Cor.  xi.,  24-26.  The  sacrament 
commemorates  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  upon  the  cross,  and  conse- 
quently can  not  be  a  new  propitiatory  sacrifice  itself  For  the 
same  reason  the  essence  of  a  sacrament  is  different  from  that  of  a 
sacrifice.     The  two  can  not  coexist  in  the  same  ordinance. 

5th.  It  belonged  to  the  very  essence  of  all  propitiatory  sacri- 
fices, as  well  to  the  typical  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  to 
the  all  perfect  one  of  Christ,  that  life  should  be  taken,  that  blood 


512  THE  lord's  supper. 

should  be  shed,  since  it  consisted  in  vicariously  suffering  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law,  Heb.  ix.,  22.  But  the  Papists  themselves  call 
the  mass  a  bloodless  sacrifice,  and  it  is  wholly  without  pain  or 
death. 

6th.  A  sacrifice  implies  a  priest  to  present  it,  but  the  Christian 
ministry  is  not  a  priesthood.     See  above,  Chap.  XXI.,  question  21. 

17.  What  is  the  Lutheran  vieiu  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacra- 
ment '( 

The  Lutheran  view  on  this  point  is  that  the  efficacy  of  the 
sacrament  resides  not  in  the  signs,  but  in  the  word  of  Grod  con- 
nected with  them,  and  that  it  is  operative  only  when  there  is  true 
faith  in  the  receiver.  It,  however,  lays  stress  upon  the  virtue  of 
the  literal  body  and  blood  of  Christ  as  present  in,  with,  and  un- 
der, the  bread  and  wine.  This  body  and  blood,  being  physically 
received  equally  by  the  believer  and  unbeliever,  but  being  of  gra- 
cious avail  only  in  the  case  of  the  believer. — 'Luther's  Small  Cat., 
Part  V. 

18.  What  is  the  view  of  the  Reformed  churches  upon  this  sub- 
ject ? 

They  rejected  the  Romish  view  which  regards  the  efficacy  of 
the  sacrament  as  inhering  in  it  physically  as  its  intrinsic  property, 
as  heat  inheres  in  fire.  They  rejected  also  the  Lutheran  view  as 
far  as  it  attributes  to  the  sacrament  an  inherent  supernatural 
power,  due  indeed  not  to  the  signs,  but  to  the  word  of  God  which 
accompanies  them,  but  which,  nevertheless,  is  always  operative, 
provided  there  be  faith  in  the  receiver.  And,  thirdly,  they  re- 
jected the  doctrine  of  the  Socinians  and  others,  that  the  sacra- 
ment is  a  mere  badge  of  profession,  or  an  empty  sign  of  Christ 
and  his  benefits.  It  is  declared  to  be  an  efficacious  means  of 
grace  ;  but  its  efficacy,  as  such,  is  referred  neither  to  any  virtue 
in  it,  nor  in  him  that  administers  it,  but  solely  to  the  attend- 
ing operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (virtus  Spiritus  Sancti  ex- 
trinsecus  accedens),  precisely  as  in  the  case  of  the  word.  It  has 
indeed  the  moral  objective  power  of  significant  emblems  and  seals 
of  divine  appointment,  just  as  the  word  has  its  inherent  moral 
power  ;  but  its  power  to  convey  grace  depends  entirely,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  word,  on  the  cooperation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Hence 


THE   CONDITIONS    OF    ADMISSION.  513 

the  power  is  in  no  way  tied  to  the  sacrament.  It  may  be  exerted 
without  it.  It  does  not  always  attend  it,  nor  is  it  confined  to  the 
time,  place,  or  service. — Bib.  Eef.,  April,  1848  ;  see  Gal.  Conf., 
Arts.  36  and  37  ;  Helv.  ii.,  c.  21  ;  Scotch  Conf.,  Art.  21  ;  28th 
and  29th  Articles  of  Church  of  England  ;  also  our  own  standards, 
Conf  Faith,  Chap.  XXIX.,  sec.  7. 

19.  What  do  our  standards  teach  as  to  the  qualifications  for 
admission  to  the  Lord's  supper  ? 

1st.  Only  those  who  are  truly  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
are  qualified,  and  only  those  who  from  their  own  profession  and 
walk  are  to  be  presumed  regenerate  are  to  be  admitted. 

2d.  Wicked  and  ignorant  persons,  and  those  who  know  them- 
selves not  to  be  regenerate,  arc  not  qualified,  and  ought  not  to  be 
admitted  by  the  church  officers. — Conf  Faith,  Chap.  XXIX., 
section  8  ;  L.  Cat.,  question  173. 

3d.  But  since  many  wlio  doubt  as  to  their  being  in  Christ  are 
nevertheless  genuine  Christians,  so  if  one  thus  doubting  unfeign- 
edly  desires  to  be  found  in  Christ,  and  to  depart  from  iniquity, 
he  ought  to  labor  to  have  his  doubts  resolved,  and,  so  doing,  to 
come  to  the  Lord's  supper,  tliat  he  may  be  further  strengthened. — 
L.  Cat.,  question  172. 

4th.  "  Children  born  within  the  pale  of  the  visible  church, 
and  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism,  when  they  come  to  years  of 
discretion,  if  they  be  free  from  scandal,  appear  sober  and  steady, 
and  to  have  sufficient  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  they 
ought  to  be  informed  it  is  their  duty  and  their  privilege  to  come 
to  the  Lord's  supper."  "  The  years  of  discretion  in  young  Chris- 
tians can  not  be  precisely  fixed.  This  must  be  left  to  the  pru- 
dence of  the  eldership." — Direct,  for  Worsh.,  Chap.  IX. 

20.  What  is  the  ijractice  which  prevails  in  the  different 
churches  on  this  subject,  and  on  what  principles  docs  such  prac- 
tice rest  ? 

1st.  The  Komanists  make  the  condition  of  salvation  to  be  union 
with  and  obedience  to  the  church,  and,  consequently,  admit  all  to 
the  sacraments  who  express  their  desire  to  conform  and  obey. 
"No  one,"  however,  "conscious  of  mortal  sin,  and  having  an 
opportunity  of  recurring  to  a  confessor,  however  contrite  he  may 


514  THE  lord's  supper. 

deem  himself,  is  to  approach  the  holy  eucharist,  until  he  is  puri- 
fied by  sacramental  confession." — Coun.  Trent,  sess.  13,  canon  11. 
The  Lutherans  agree  with  them  in  admitting  all  who  conform  to 
the  external  requirements  of  the  church. 

2d.  High  Church  prelatists,  and  others  who  regard  the  sacra- 
ments as  in  themselves  effective  means  of  grace,  maintain  that 
(!ven  those  who,  knowing  themselves  to  be  destitute  of  the  fruits 
of  the  Spirit,  nevertheless  have  speculative  faith  in  the  gospel, 
and  are  free  from  scandal,  and  desire  to  come,  should  be  ad- 
mitted, 

3d.  The  faith  and  practice  of  all  the  evangelical  churches  is 
that  the  communion  is  designed  only  for  believers,  and  therefore, 
that  a  credible  profession  of  faith  and  obedience  should  be  re- 
quired of  every  applicant.  (1.)  The  Baptist  churches  denying 
altogether  the  right  of  infant  church  membership,  receive  all  ap- 
plicants for  the  communion  as  from  the  world,  and  therefore 
demand  positive  evidences  of  the  new  birth  of  all.  -  (2.)  All  the 
Pedobaptist  churches,  maintaining  that  all  children  baptized  in 
infancy  are  already  members  of  the  church,  distinguish  between 
the  admission  of  the  children  of  the  church  to  the  communion, 
and  the  admission  de  novo  to  the  church  of  the  unbaptizcd  alien 
from  the  world.  With  regard  to  the  former,  the  presumption  is 
that  they  should  come  to  the  Lord's  table  when  they  arrive  at 
"  years  of  discretion,  if  they  be  free  fi'om  scandal,  appear  to  be 
sober ^aud  steady,  and  to  have  sufficient  knowledge  to  discern  the 
Lord's  body."  In  the  case  of  the  unbaptized  worldling,  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  they  are  aliens  until  they  bring  a  credible  pro- 
fession of  a  change. 

21.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  Lord's  supper  is  not  de- 
signed for  the  unrenewed  ? 

It  can,  of  course,  be  designed  only  for  those  who  are  spirit- 
ually qualified  to  do  in  reality  what  every  recipient  of  the  sacra- 
ment does  in  form,  and  professedly.  But  this  ordinance  is  essen- 
tially— 

1st.  A  profession  of  Christ. 

2d.  A  solemn  covenant  to  accept  Christ  and  his  gospel,  and 
to  fulfill  the  conditions  of  discipleship. 

3d.  An  act  of  spiritu;;!  communion  with  Christ. 


CONDITIONS   OF    ADMISSION.  515 

The  qualifications  for  acccptaLle  communion,  tlierefore,  are 
such  knowledge,  and  such  a  spiritual  condition  as  shall  enable 
the  recipient  intelligently  and  honestly  to  discern  in  the  emblems 
the  Lord's  body  as  sacrificed  for  sin,  to  contract  with  him  the 
gospel  covenant,  and  to  hold  fellowship  with  him  through  the 
Spirit, 

22.  What  have  the  church  and  its  ojjlcers  a  right  to  require 
of  those  lohom  they  admit  to  the  Lord's  supper  ? 

"  The  officers  of  the  church  are  the  judges  of  the  qualifications 
of  those  to  be  admitted  to  sealing  ordinances."  "  And  those  so 
admitted  shall  be  examined  as  to  their  knowledge  and  piety." — 
Direct,  for  Worsh.,  Chap.  IX.  As  God  has  not  endowed  any  of 
these  officers  with  the  power  of  reading  the  heart,  it  follows  that 
tlie  qualifications  of  which  they  are  the  judges  are  simply  those 
of  competent  knowledge,  purity  of  life,  and  credible  profession  of 
faith.  It  is  their  duty  to  examine  the  applicant  as  to  his  knowl- 
edge, to  watch  and  inquire  concerning  his  walk  and  conversation, 
to  set  before  him  faithfully  the  inward  spiritual  qualifications  re- 
quisite for  acceptable  communion,  and  to  hear  his  profession  of 
tliat  spiritual  faith  and  purpose.  The  responsibility  of  the  act 
then  rests  upon  the  individual  professor,  and  not  upon  the  ses- 
sion, who  are  never  to  be  understood  as  passing  judgment  upon, 
or  as  indorsing  the  validity  of  his  evidences. 

23.  What  is  the  difference  hetiveen  the  Presbyterian  and  the 
Congregational  churches  upon  this  point  ? 

There  exists  a  difference  between  the  traditionary  views  and 
practice  of  these  two  bodies  of  Christians  with  respect  to  the  abil- 
ity, the  right,  and  the  duty  of  church  officers,  of  forming  and 
affirming  a  positive  official  judgment  upon  the  inward  spiritual 
character  of  applicants  for  church  privileges.  The  Congregation- 
alists  understand  by  "  credible  profession"  the  positive  evidence 
of  a  religious  experience  which  satisfies  the  official  judges  of  the 
gracious  state  of  the  applicant.  The  Presbyterians  understand 
by  that  phrase  only  an  intelligent  profession  of  true  spiritual 
faitli  in  Christ,  which  is  not  contradicted  by  the  life. 

Dr.  Candlish,  in  the  Edinburgh  Witness,  Juito  8th,  1848, 
says,  "  The  principle  (of  communion),  as  it  is  notorious  that  the 


516  THE  lord's  suppp:r. 

Presbyterian  cliiircli  has  always  held  it,  does  not  constitute  the 
pastor,  elders,  or  congregation,  judges  of  the  actual  conversion  of 
the  applicant ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  lays  much  responsibility 
upon  the  applicant  himself.  The  minister  and  kirk  session  must 
be  satisfied  as  to  his  competent  knowledge,  credible  profession, 
and  consistent  walk.  They  must  determine  negatively  that  there 
is  no  reason  for  pronouncing  him  not  to  be  a  Christian,  but  they 
do  not  undertake  the  responsibility  of  positively  judging  of  his 
conversion.  This  is  the  Presbyterian  rule  of  discipline,  be  it 
right  or  wrong,  differing  materially  from  that  of  the  Congi'ega- 
tionalists.  In  practice  there  is  room  for  much  dealing  with  the 
conscience  under  either  rule,  and  persons  destitute  of  knowledge 
and  of  a  credible  profession  are  excluded." 


APPENDICES. 


A. 

I.  The  Apostles'  Creed,  so  called,  but  known  to  have  assumed 
its  present  form  only  gradually.  It  has,  however,  been  in  sub- 
stantially its  present  form  the  creed  of  the  whole  Christian 
chui'ch  ever  since  the  close  of  the  second  century.  The  clauses 
which  were  the  latest  added  to  the  creed  are,  "  he  descended  into 
hell,"  "  the  communion  of  saints,"  and  "  the  life  everlasting." 
See  Mosheim,  Cen.  I.,  Part  II.,  Chap,  III.  ;  Bingham's  Christ. 
Ant.,  Book  X.,  Chapter  III. 

I  believe  in  God  the  Father  almighty,  maker  of  heaven  and 
earth  ;  and  in  Jesus  Christ  his  only  Son,  our  Lord  ;  who  was 
conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary ;  suf- 
fered under  Pontius  Pilate  ;  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried  :  he 
descended  into  hell ;  the  third  day  he  rose  again  from  the  dead, 
he  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God 
the  Father  almighty  ;  from  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead.  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  holy  cath- 
olic church,  the  communion  of  saints,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  everlasting.     Amen. 

II.  The  Nicene  Creed,  as  it  was  actually  enacted  by  the 
Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325. 

We  believe  in  one  God  the  Father  almighty,  the  maker  of  all 
things,  visible  and  invisible ;  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father  ;  only  begotten,  (that  is,) 
of  the  substance  of  the  Father  ;  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light, 
very  God  of  very  God  ;  begotten,  not  made ;  of  the  same  sub- 


518  APPENDIX. 

stance  with  the  Father  ;  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  that 
are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in  earth  ;  who  for  us  men,  and  for 
our  salvation,  descended,  and  was  incarnate,  and  became  man  ; 
suffered,  and  rose  again  the  third  day  ;  ascended  into  the  heavens, 
and  will  come  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead  :  and  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  those  who  say,  that  there  was  a  time  when  he  was 
not,  and  that  he  was  not  before  he  was  begotten,  and  that  he  was 
made  out  of  nothing,  or  affirm  that  he  is  of  any  other  substance 
or  essence,  or  that  the  Son  of  God  is  created,  and  mutable  or 
changeable,  the  Catholic  church  doth  pronounce  accursed. 

III.  The  creed  set  forth  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 
called  by  Theodosius  the  Great,  A.  D.  381,  and  the  second  oecu- 
menical council.  This  is  the  creed  used  in  the  Catholic,  Lu- 
theran, and  English  churches,  and  erroneously  styled  the  Nicene 
Creed,  a  true  version  of  which  I  have  given  above,  from  which 
this  Constantinopolitan  creed  differs  chiefly  in  being  much  more 
full  and  definite  in  the  article  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost.  It 
was  for  the  purpose  of  condemning  errors  concerning  the  person- 
ality and  divinity  of  the  third  Person  of  the  Trinity,  which  had 
prominently  emerged  since  the  Council  of  Nice,  that  the  Council 
of  Constantinople  enacted  these  additional  definitive  clauses. — 
Mosheim,  Cen.  IV.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  V. 

I  believe  in  one  God  the  Father  almighty,  maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible  ;  and  in  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  begotten  son  of  God,  begotten  of  his 
Father  before  all  worlds  ;  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God 
of  very  God,  begotten  not  made,  being  of  one  substance  with  the 
Father  ;  by  whom  all  things  were  made  ;  who  for  us  men,  and 
for  our  salvation  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  incarnate  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made  man,  and  was 
crucified,  also  for  us,  under  Pontius  Pilate.  He  suffered  and  was 
buried  ;  and  the  third  day  he  rose  again  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Father.  And  he  shall  come  again  with  glory  to  judge  both 
the  quick  and  the  dead  ;  whose  kingdom  shall  have  no  end.  And 
I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  life,  who  pro- 
ceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  (this  phrase  "  filioque"  was 
added  to  the  creed  of  Constantinople  by  the  council  of  the  western 


APPENDIX.  519 

church  held  at  Toledo,  A.  D.,  589),  who,  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son  together,  is  worshiped  and  glorified,  Avho  spake  by  the 
prophets.  And  I  believe  one  Catholic  and  apostolic  church,  1 
acknowledge  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  I  look  for 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  comr. 

IV.  The  Athanasian  Creed,  so  called,  vulgarly  ascribed  to  the 
great  Athanasius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  from  about  A.  D.  328 
to  A.  D.  373,  and  the  leader  of  the  orthodox  jjarty  in  the  cliurch 
in  opposition  to  the  arch  heretic,  Arius.  "  But  the  best  and  latest 
critics,  who  have  examined  the  thing  most  exactly,  make  no  ques- 
tion but  that  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  a  Latin  author,  Vigilius 
Tapsensis,  an  African  bishop,  who  lived  in  the  latter  end  of  the 
fifth  century,  in  the  time  of  the  Vandalic  Arian  persecution." — 
Bingham's  Christian  Antiquities,  Bk.,  X.,  Chap.  IV. 

1.  Whosoever  wishes  to  be  saved,  it  is  above  all  necessary  for 
him  to  hold  the  Catholic  faith.  2.  Which,  unless  each  one  shall 
preserve  perfect  and  inviolate,  he  shall  certainly  perish  for  ever. 
3.  But  the  Catholic  faith  is  this,  that  we  worship  one  God  in 
trinity,  and  trinity  in  unity.  4.  Neither  confounding  the  persons, 
nor  sej^arating  the  substance.  5.  For  the  person  of  the  Father  is 
one,  of  the  Son  another,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  another.  6.  But 
of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  there  is  one 
divinity,  equal  glory  and  coeternal  majesty.  7.  What  the  Father 
is,  the  same  is  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  8.  The  Father  is 
uncreated,  the  Son  uncreated,  the  Holy  Ghost  uncreated.  9.  The 
Father  is  immense,  the  Son  immense,  the  Holy  Ghost  immense. 
10.  The  Father  is  eternal,  the  Son  eternal,  the  Holy  Ghost  eter- 
nal. 11.  And  yet  there  are  not  three  eternals,  but  one  eternal. 
12.  So  there  are  not  three  (beings)  uncreated,  nor  three  immense, 
but  one  uncreated,  and  one  immense.  13.  In  like  manner  the 
Father  is  omnij^otent,  the  Son  is  omnipotent,  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
omnipotent.  14.  And  yet  there  are  not  three  omnipotents,  but 
one  omnipotent.  15.  Thus  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God, 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  God.  16.  And  yet  there  are  not  three  Gods, 
but  one  God.  17.  Thus  the  Father  is  Lord,  the  Son  is  Lord,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  Lord.  18.  And  yet  there  are  not  three  Lords, 
but  one  Lord.  19.  Because  we  are  thus  compelled  by  Christian 
verity  to  confess  each  person  severally  to  be  God  and  Lord  ;  so 


520  APPENDIX. 

we  are  prohibited  by  the  Catholic  religion  from  saying  that  there 
are  three  Gods  or  Lords.  20.  The  Father  was  made  from  none, 
nor  created,  nor  begotten.  21.  The  Son  is  from  the  Father  alone, 
neither  made,  nor  created,  but  begotten.  22.  The  Holy  Ghost  is 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  neither  made,  nor  created,  nor  be- 
gotten, but  proceeding.  23.  Therefore  there  is  one  Father,  not 
three  fathers,  one  Son,  not  three  sons,  one  Holy  Ghost,  not  three 
Holy  Ghosts.  24.  And  in  this  trinity  there  is  nothing  first  or 
last  ;  nothing  greater  or  less.  25.  But  all  the  three  coeternal 
persons  are  coequal  among  themselves  ;  so  that  through  all,  as  is 
above  said,  both  unity  in  trinity,  and  trinity  in  unity  is  to  be 
worshiped.  26.  Therefore,  he  who  wishes  to  be  saved  must 
think  thus  concerning  the  trinity.  27.  But  it  is  necessary  to 
eternal  salvation  that  he  should  also  faithfully  believe  in  the  in- 
carnation of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  28.  It  is,  therefore,  true 
faith  that  we  believe  and  confess  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is 
both  God  and  man.  29.  He  is  Godj  generated  from  eternity  from 
the  substance  of  the  Father  ;  man,  born  in  time  from  the  sub- 
stance of  his  mother.  30.  Perfect  God,  perfect  man,  subsisting 
of  a  rational  soul  and  human  flesh.  31.  Equal  to  the  Father  in 
respect  to  his  divinity,  less  than  the  Father  in  respect  to  his  hu- 
manity. 32.  Who,  although  he  is  God  and  man,  is  not  two  but 
one  Christ.  33.  But  one,  not  from  the  conversion  of  his  divinity 
into  flesh,  but  from  the  assumption  of  his  humanity  into  God. 
34.  One  not  at  all  from  confusion  of  substance,  but  from  unity 
of  person.  35.  For  as  a  rational  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man,  so 
God  and  man  is  one  Christ.  36.  Who  suffered  for  our  salvation, 
descended  into  hell,  the  third  day  rose  from  the  dead.  37.  As- 
cended to  heaven,  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father 
onmipotent,  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  living  and  the 
dead.  38.  At  whose  coming  all  men  shall  rise  again  with  their 
bodies,  and  shall  render  an  account  for  their  works.  39.  And 
they  who  have  done  well  shall  go  into  life  eternal  ;  they  who 
have  done  evil  into  eternal  fire.  40.  This  is  the  Catholic  faith, 
which,  unless  a  man  shall  faithfully  and  firmly  believe,  he  can 
not  be  saved. 


APPENDIX  521 


B. 


As  the  system  of  doctrine  commonly  designated  Calvinism, 
from  its  ablest  expounder,  the  illustrious  reformer  of  Geneva,  was 
in  fact  first  clearly  defined  and  advocated  by  the  great  St.  Augus- 
TiN,  bishop  of  Hippo,  in  Northern  Africa,  during  the  last  years 
of  the  fourth  and  the  first  of  the  JJ/tJi  century,  so  that  antagonist 
system,  now  generally -known  as  Ai-jniniaiiism,  from  the  fact  that 
its  most  able  and  prominent  modern  advocates,  the  Remonstrants, 
of  Holland,  were  led,  in  the  order  of  time,  by  James  Arminius, 
professor  of  theology  in  the  University  of  Leyden,  from  1602  to 
1609,  was  really  in  the  first  instance  set  forth  by  John  Cas- 
siANUS,  an  Eastern  monk  settled  in  Marseilles,  in  France,  during 
the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century.  The  advocates  of  this  system 
were  at  first  called  Massilians  (from  llassilia,  Marseilles),  and 
afterwards,  by  the  schoolmen,  Semipelagians. 

During  the  controversies  which  immediately  preceded  the 
General  Synod  of  Dort,  in  Holland,  A.  D.  1618  and  1619  (when 
the  churches  of  England,  Scotland,  Holland,  the  Palatinate,  and 
Switzerland,  united  in  condemning,  by  their  representatives,  this 
doctrine,  and  in  reasserting  Calvinism  as  the  faith  of  the  Reformed 
churches),  the  Remonstrants  set  forth  their  position,  as  contrasted 
with  the  established  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  churches,  in  five 
propositions.  These  are  known  as  the  five  points  of  contro- 
versy between  the  disciples  of  Arminius  and  of  Calvin.  These, 
as  given  by  Mosheira,  Cent.  XVII.,  Sec.  II.,  Part  II.,  Chap.  III., 
are  as  follows  : 

1st.  "  That  God,  from  all  eternity,  determined  to  bestow  salva- 
tion on  those  who,  as  he  foresaw,  would  persevere  unto  the  end 
in  their  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  inflict  everlasting  punish- 
ment on  those  who  should  continue  in  their  unbelief,  and  resist, 
to  the  end  of  life,  his  divine  succours. 

2d.  "  That  Jesus  Christ,  by  his  death  and  sufferings,  made  an 
atonement  for  the  sins  of  mankind  in  general,  and  of  every  indi- 
vidual in  particular  ;  that,  however,  none  but  those  who  believe 
in  him  can  be  partakers  of  that  divine  benefit. 

3d.  "  That  true  fiiitli  can  not  proceed  from  the  exercise  of  our 
natural  faculties  and  powers,  or  from  the  force  and  operation  of 


.■>22  APPENDIX. 

free  will,  since  man,  in  consequence  of  his  natural  corruption,  is 
incapable  of  thinking  or  doing  any  good  thing  ;  and  that  there- 
fore it  is  necessary  to  his  conversion  and  salvation  that  he  be  re- 
generated and  renewed  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
is  the  gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ. 

4th.  "  That  this  divine  grace  or  energy  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  heals  the  disorders  of  a  corrupt  nature,  begins,  advances, 
and  brings  to  perfection  every  thing  that  can  be  called  good  in 
man  ;  and  that,  consequently,  all  good  works,  without  exception, 
are  to  be  attributed  to  God  alone,  and  to  the  operation  of  his 
grace  ;  that,  nevertheless,  this  grace  does  not  force  the  man  to  act 
against  his  inclination,  but  may  be  resisted  and  rendered  ineffec- 
tual by  the  perverse  will  of  the  impenitent  sinner. 

5th.  "  That  they  who  are  united  to  Christ  by  faith  are  there- 
by furnished  with  abundant  strength  and  succor  sufficient  to  en- 
able them  to  triumph  over  the  seductions  of  Satan,  and  the  allure- 
ments of  sin  ;  nevertheless  they  may,  by  the  neglect  of  these  suc- 
cors, fall  from  grace,  and,  dying  in  such  a  state,  may  finally 
perish.  This  point  was  stated  at  first  doubtfully,  but  afterwards 
positively  as  a  settled  doctrine." 

It  must  be  remembered  that  this  statement  was  put  forth  dur- 
ing the  early  stages  of  this  controversy,  while  the  Kemonstrants 
were  deprecating  all  ecclesiastical  investigation  of  their  divergen- 
cies from  the  creeds  of  the  national  church,  and  before,  in  fjict, 
their  system  had  been  thoroughly  elaborated  by  their  own  teachers. 
The  fundamental  positions  set  forth  in  these  Jive  jjoinfs  led  by 
logical  necessity  to  that  rationalistic  anti-evangelical  system  ma- 
tured by  the  later  Kemonstrant  theologians,  and  presenting  un- 
scriptural  views  upon  almost  every  question  concerning  Christi- 
anity, as  concerning  our  federal  relation  to  Adam,  original  sin, 
prjcdestination,  providence,  redemption,  free  will,  grace,  faith,  re- 
generation, justification,  sanctification,  perseverance,  good  works, 
etc.,  etc. 


■^ 


THE   END, 


/^7 


i& 


^^"i  OF  PR//f^ 


SEP  M 


^nrn  sm^ 


